# FINAL 2003 AQMP APPENDIX IV-A

DISTRICT’S STATIONARY AND MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES

AUGUST 2003

### SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD

Chairman: WILLIAM A. BURKE, Ed.D. Speaker of the Assembly Appointee Vice-Chair: S. ROY WILSON, Ed.D. Supervisor, Fourth District Riverside County Representative

Members:

FRED AGUIAR Supervisor, Fourth District San Bernardino County Representative

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH Supervisor, Fifth District Los Angeles County Representative

HAL BERNSON Councilmember, City of Los Angeles Cities Representative, Los Angeles County/Western Region

JANE W. CARNEY Senate Rules Committee Appointee

WILLIAM CRAYCRAFT Councilmember, City of Mission Viejo Cities Representative, Orange County

BEATRICE LAPISTO-KIRTLEY Councilmember, City of Bradbury Cities Representative, Los Angeles County/Eastern Region

RONALD O. LOVERIDGE Mayor, City of Riverside Cities Representative, Riverside County

LEONARD PAULITZ Councilmember, City of Montclair Cities Representative, San Bernardino County

JAMES W. SILVA Supervisor, Second District Orange County Representative

CYNTHIA VERDUGO-PERALTA Governor’s Appointee

EXECUTIVE OFFICER Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.

## CONTRIBUTORS

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env. Executive Officer
Elaine Chang, DrPH Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources
Laki Tisopulos, Ph.D., P.E. Assistant Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources
Zorik Pirveysian Planning and Rules Manager Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources

Authors/Contributors Reviewers Jill Whynot - Planning and Rules Manager Edward Eckerle - Program Supervisor Kathy Hsiao - Program Supervisor Julia Lester - Program Supervisor Marty Kay - Program Supervisor Ed Muehlbacher - Program Supervisor Gary Quinn - Program Supervisor Naveen Berry - Program Supervisor Jonathan Nadler - Air Quality Specialist Mike Laybourn - Air Quality Specialist Minh Pham - Air Quality Specialist Tuyet-Le Pham - Air Quality Specialist Ken Ellis - Air Quality Engineer II Pamela Perryman - Air Quality Specialist Ricardo Rivera - Air Quality Specialist Susan Yan - Air Quality Specialist Barbara Baird - District Counsel Frances Keeler - Sr. Deputy District Counsel

Production Faye Thomas - SecretaryTable of Contents

i 

### Table of Contents

SECTION 1 STATIONARY SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES Introduction................................................................................................................... ...................IV-1 Stationary Source Control Measures ............................................................................................. ..IV-1 Coatings and Solvents.......................................................................................................... IV-3 Petroleum Operations and Fugitive VOC Emissions ..........................................................IV-3 Combustion Sources ............................................................................................................I V-4 Fugitive Dust Sources.......................................................................................................... IV-4 Miscellaneous Sources.........................................................................................................I V-4 Compliance Flexibility Programs ........................................................................................IV-5 District’s Mobile Source Control Measures ........................................................................IV-5 District’s Long-Term C ontrol Measure ...............................................................................IV-5 Transportation Conformity Budget Backstop Measure .......................................................IV-5 Rule Effectiveness ............................................................................................................. ..............IV-5 Format of Control Measures ..................................................................................................... .......IV-6 Control Measure Number ....................................................................................................IV-6 Title.......................................................................................................................... ............IV-7 Summary Table.................................................................................................................. ..IV-7 Description of Source Category...........................................................................................IV-7 Proposed Method of Control................................................................................................IV-7 Emissions Reduction............................................................................................................ IV-8 Rule Compliance................................................................................................................ ..IV-9 Test Methods................................................................................................................... .....IV-9 Cost Effectiveness............................................................................................................. ...IV-9 Implementing Agency..........................................................................................................IV -9 References..................................................................................................................... .....IV-10

GROUP 1 COATINGS AND SOLVENTS CTS-07 Further Emission Reductions from Architectural Coatings and Cleanup Solvents [VOC]......................................................................................................IV-11 CTS-10 Miscellaneous Industrial Coatings and Solvent Operations [VOC] ......................IV-15

GROUP 2 PETROLEUM OPERATIONS AND FUGITIVE VOC EMISSIONS FUG-05 Emission Reductions from Fugitive Sources [VOC].............................................IV-19Table of Contents

ii GROUP 3 COMBUSTION SOURCES CMB-07 Emission Reductions from Petroleum Refinery Flares [all pollutants] .................IV-23 CMB-09 Emission Reductions from Petrol eum Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units [PM10, NH 3 ]..........................................................................................................IV-27 CMB-10 Additional Reductions for NO x RECLAIM [NO x ]................................................IV-33

GROUP 4 FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES BCM-07 Further Emission Reductions from Fugitive Dust Sources [PM10] ......................IV-37 BCM-08 Further Emission Reductions from Aggregate and Cement Manufacturing Operations [PM10].................................................................................................IV-40

GROUP 5 MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES MSC-01 Promotion of Lighter Color Roofing and Road Materials Programs [all pollutants] ........................................................................................................IV-45 MSC-03 Promotion of Catalyst-Surface Coating Technology Programs [O 3, CO]..............IV-51 MSC-04 Emission Reductions from Miscellaneous Ammonia Sources [NH 3 ] ...................IV-54 MSC-05 Truck Stop Electrifica tion [All Pollutants]............................................................IV-57 MSC-06 Emission Reductions from Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Stoves [PM10] ...................................................................................................................IV-60 MSC-07 Natural Gas Fuel Specifications [NO x ]..................................................................IV-68 MSC-08 Further Emission Reductions from Large VOC Sources [VOC]...........................IV-71 PRC-03(P2) Emission Reductions from Re staurant Operations [PM10]...................................IV-74 PRC-07 Industrial Process Operations [VOC] ....................................................................IV-79 WST-01 Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste [VOC, NH 3 ]....................................IV-82 WST-02 Emission Reductions from Composting [VOC, NH 3 , PM10] ...............................IV-92 FSS-04 Emission Charges of $5,000 per Ton of VOC for Stationary Sources Emitting over 10 Tons per Year [VOC] ................................................................IV-97

GROUP 6 COMPLIANCE FLEXIBILITY PROGRAM FLX-01 Economic Incentive Programs [All Pollutants] .....................................................IV-99

GROUP 7 DISTRICT’S MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES FSS-05 Mitigation Fee Program for Federal Sources [All]..............................................IV-104 FSS-06 Further Emission Reductions from In -Use Off-Road Mobile Vehicles and Equipment [All] ...................................................................................................IV-109 FSS-07 Emission Fee Program for Port-Related Mobile Sources [All] ...........................IV-112Table of Contents

iii GROUP 8 DISTRICT’S LONG-TERM CONTROL MEASURE LTM-ALL Long-Term Control Measure [VOC]...................................................................IV-115

GROUP 9 TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY BUDGET BACKSTOP MEASURE TCB-01 Transportation Conformity Budget Backstop Measure [PM10]..........................IV-119

SECTION 2 CONTINGENCY MEASURES Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...............IV-122 Contingency Measures.....................................................................................................IV-122 Format of Control Measures ..................................................................................................... ...IV-123 Control Measure Number ................................................................................................IV-123 Summary Table................................................................................................................IV -123 Information Contained in Measures ................................................................................IV-124

CONTINGENCY CONTROL MEASURES CTY-01 Accelerated Implementation of Control Measures [All Pollutants] ....................IV-125 CTY-04 Enhanced Oxygenated Fuels Content [CO].........................................................IV-128 CTY-14 Control of Emissions from Miscellaneous Sources (Weed Abatement Operations) [PM10]...............................................................IV-132

## SECTION 1 STATIONARY SOURCE CONTROL MEASURESFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures

IV-1 

### INTRODUCTION This Appendix describes the South Coast Air Qu ality Management District’s (District’s) proposed stationary source control measures to be included in the 2003 AQMP. Control measures presented in this appendix are ba sed upon a variety of ma rket incentives and control strategies that are commercially availa ble and technologically fe asible in the next several years. These control measures only address stationary sources that are under the District’s jurisdiction. Additional stati onary source control measures for source regulated under CARB are included in Appe ndix IV-B, Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implementati on Plan. Contingency measures are also included in this appe ndix under Section 2.



### STATIONARY SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES The 2003 AQMP includes 24 short-term control measures for stationary and mobile sources developed by the District that are expected to be implemented within the next several years. One long-term measure for stationary sources is included in the 2003 AQMP. Stationary source measures contai ned in the 2003 AQMP include the remaining revised and partially implemented measures from the 1997 AQMP and the 1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone St ate Implementation Plan, with eleven additional new control measures. In additi on, a new transportation conf ormity budget backstop measure is included in the 2003 AQMP.
To foster further technology advancement, the District is introducing a “long-term” control measure to achieve additional VOC emission reductions from VOC sources under the District’s jurisdiction. The Dist rict will seek to achieve maximum reduction potential from these sources based on techni cal feasibility and cost-effectiveness.

It should be noted that the emission reduction targets for the proposed control measures (those with quantified reductions) are estab lished based on available or anticipated control methods or technologies. Howeve r, emission reductions associated with implementation of these and other control m easures or rules in excess of the AQMP’s projected reductions can be credited toward the overall emission reduction targets for the proposed control measures in this appendix.

Emission reduction associated with the Di strict’s SIP commitment to adopt and implement short-term VOC, PM10, NO x 

### , and SO X 

### emission reductions from sources under the District’s jurisdiction are shown Table 1.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control MeasuresIV-2TABLE 1Short-term VOC, PM10, NOx and SOx Emission Reductions Commitment by SCAQMDto be Achieved Through Rule Adoption and Implementation-2010 Planning Inventory-(Tons/Day)VOCPM10NOxSOxYearBased onAdoptionDateBased onImplementation DateaBased onAdoptionDateBased onImplementation DateaBased onAdoptionDateBased onImplementation DateaBased onAdoptionDateBased onImplementation Datea2002 0.6 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---2003 16.9 0.6 0.5 --- --- --- --- ---2004 2.0 --- 1.7 --- 3.0 --- 2.1 ---2005 2.0 --- --- 0.16 2.1 --- --- 2.12006 --- 4.8 --- 0.86 --- --- --- ---2007 --- 2.0 --- 0.16 --- 2.1 --- ---2008 --- 12.1 --- 0.66 --- --- --- ---2009 --- --- --- 0.16 --- --- --- ---2010 --- 2.0 --- 0.16 --- 3.0 --- ---Total 21.5b21.5b2.2 2.2 5.1 5.1 2.1 2.1aRepresents the final, full implementation date; typically a rule contains multiple implementation dates.bAn additional 16 tons of reductions associated with implementation of Rule 1171 – Solvent Cleaning Operations are subject totechnology assessments in 2003 and 2004 prior to implementation in 2005 and are not included in this value.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures

IV-3 

### Table 2 shows a summary of the Distri ct’s SIP commitment for long-term VOC emission reductions. Should there be emission reduction shortfalls in any given year, the District would identify and adopt other measures to make up the shortf all. Similarly, if excess emission reductions are achieved in a y ear, they can be used in that year or carried over to subsequent years if necessary to meet reduction goals.

TABLE 2 Long-Term VOC Emission Reductions Commitment by SCAQMD to be Achieved Through Rule Adoption and Implementation -2010 Planning Inventory- (Tons/Day)

VOC

Year Based on Adoption Date Based on Implementation Date a

2005 4.0 --- 2006 10.0 --- 2007 10.0 3.0 2008 7.0 10.0 2009 --- 11.0 2010 --- 7.0
Total 31.0 31.0

a Represents the final, full implementation date; typically a rule contains multiple implementation dates.



### Coating and Solvents The category of coatings and solvents is pr imarily targeted at reducing VOC emissions from VOC-containing products such as coatings and solvents. This category includes two control measures that are based on add itional emission reductions from architectural coating categories and other miscellane ous coating and solvent operations.


### Petroleum Operations and Fugitive VOC Emissions This category pertains primarily to opera tions and materials associated with the petroleum, chemical, and other industries. Within this category, there is one control measure targeting fugitive VOC emissions asso ciated with petroleum-related operations, and chemical products processing, and other manufacturing operations.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures

IV-4 

### Combustion Sources This category includes three measures targ eting stationary combustion equipment. There are two control measures for the petr oleum refinery industr y which target VOC emissions from refinery flares and PM10 and NH 3 

### emissions from petroleum fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) units. In addition, there is one new control measure that seeks to further reduce NO x 

### emissions from RECLAIM facilities.


### Fugitive Dust Sources This category includes two new control measures which would require further reductions in fugitive dust emissions from a variety of sources such as paved and unpaved roads, construction and demoliti on activities, aggregate processing and handling facilities, and cement manufacturing operations. Localized controls may be introduced in high PM10 areas to en sure attainment demonstration.



### Miscellaneous Sources
There are a total of twelve control measures in this category. The miscellaneous source category includes one control measure th at targets PM10 emissions from under-fired charbroilers at restaurants. In addition, another measure proposes further control of VOC emissions from miscellaneous industrial process operations wh ich may or may not already be subject to Regulati on IV and XI rules. Two cont rol measures are included in this category that address VOC and amm onia emissions from livestock waste and composting operations. A new c ontrol measure is included in this category that seeks to further reduce ammonia emissions from a vari ety of sources including mobile, area and stationary sources. In addition, a program is proposed to promote th e use of lighter color roofing, road materials, or tree planting. Another measure is proposed to reduce ozone emissions in the ambient air through the use of catalyst-surface coa ting technology. This measure has a potential to be implemente d geographically to reduce ambient ozone concentrations. This category also incl udes a measure that would implement an emission charge of $5,000 per ton of VOC for all large VOC sources emitting over 10 tons per year in the event that federal ambi ent air quality standard for ozone is not met by 2010. One new control measure in this category seeks to reduce the PM10 emissions from wood burning fireplaces and wood stoves. An additional measure seeks to specify fuel standards for natural gas used in st ationary sources as a means of reducing NO x 

### emissions. The next new cont rol measure in this category seeks to reduce the emissions from idling trucks at trucks stops. A final new control measure would require large VOC sources to reduce their VOC emissi ons by implementing feasible measures outlined in a facility emission reduction plan. This measure would also seek creditable emission reductions to the SIP for improveme nt in emissions inventory estimates.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures

IV-5 

### Compliance Flexibility 

### Programs This category includes one control measur e that enhances regulatory compliance by providing additional flexibility and complia nce options thereby lowering compliance costs and incentivizing early reductions and advancement of clean technologies.



### District’s Mobile Source Control Measures The District is proposing three new control measures for mobile sources. One control measures seeks to impose a m itigation fee program on federa l sources such as planes, trains, and ships in order to fund emission reduction projects. The second targets offroad mobile vehicles and e quipment where it is determin ed that additional emission reductions are needed to meet the air quality goals of the 2003 AQMP. The final control measure in this category seek s to reduce the emissions from on-road and off-road mobile sources operating at, and traveling to and from the regional port facilities.


### District’s Long-Term Control Measure The District is also proposing a long-term measure in addition to the short-term (defined) measures to achieve additional VOC reducti ons from stationary point and area sources under the District’s jurisdiction (i.e., ex cept consumer products and pesticides).


### Transportation Conformity B udget Backstop Measure Group 9 contains one new m easure that seeks additi onal primary PM10 emission reductions from transportation-related PM 10 sources (e.g., paved and unpaved road entrained fugitive dust) in or der to offset increased emissions from these sources in future years.



### RULE EFFECTIVENESS The 1990 federal Clean Air Act requires that emi ssions inventories be adjusted to reflect the rule effectiveness. As defined by EPA, rule effectiveness reflects how emission reductions due to implementa tion of a regulatory program are estimated. EPA suggests a default value of 80 percent if emission reductions are estimated based on projected control efficiencies and emission factors. If a higher rule effectiven ess value is used the District needs to demonstrate how thes e emission reductions will be achieved.
As described below under Rule Complia nce and Test Methods, the compliance demonstration for each proposed control meas ure, where the District accounted for emission reductions, identifies the complianc e mechanisms such as recordkeeping, inspection and maintenance activities, etc., and test methods such as District, ARB, and EPA approved test methods. The District’s on going s ource testing and on-site inspection programs also strengthen the status of compliance verification. In addition, the District conducts workshops, complianc e education programs to inform facility operators on rule requirements and assist th em in performing recordkeeping and selfFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures

IV-6 

### inspections. These compliance tools are designed to ensure rule compliance would be achieved on a continued basis. As a result, the control measures proposed in this appendix with quantifiable emission reductions are based on a rule effectiveness of 100 percent.



### FORMAT OF CONTROL MEASURES
Included in each control measur e description is a title, summary table, description of source category (including b ackground and regulatory hist ory), proposed method of control, estimated emission reductions, rule co mpliance, test methods, cost effectiveness, and references. The type of informati on that can be found under each of these subheadings is described below.



### Control Measure Number Each control measure is identified by a control measure number such as “CM #2003CTS-07” located at the upper right hand co rner of every page. “CM #” is the abbreviation for the “control measure number” and is immediately followed by the year of the AQMP revision.
The next three-letter designation, “CTS” represents the abbreviation for a source category or specific programs. For example “CTS” is an abbreviation for “Coatings and Solvents.” The following provides a descrip tion of the abbreviati ons for each of the

measure.

• CTS Coatings and Solvents

• CMB Combustion Sources

• FUG Fugitive Emissions

• MSC Miscellaneous Sources

• BCM Best Available Control Meas ures for Fugitive Dust Sources

• PRC Process Related Emissions

• WST Waste Related Measures

• FLX Compliance Flexibility Programs

• FSS Future Study Strategy

• LTM Long-Term MeasuresFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures

IV-7 

### • TCB Transportation Conformity Budget Backstop Measures

If the measure is based on a contro l measure from the 1997 AQMP or the 1999 Amendment to the 1997 AQMP, the former cont rol measure number is the same, except the year designator will be 2003, indi cating the 2003 AQMP revision, e.g. CM #2003FLX-01 is based on CM #97FLX-01.



### Title
The title contains the control measure name and the major pollutant(s) controlled by the measure. Titles that state “Control of Emi ssions from...” indicate that the measure is regulating a new source category, not presently regulated by an existing source- specific District rule. Titles that st ate “Further Emission Reductions of” imply that the measure would result in an amendment to an existing District rule.


### Summary Table
Each measure contains a table that summarizes the measure that is designed to identify the key components of the contro l measure. The table contains a brief explanation of the source category, control met hod, emission reductions, control costs, and implementing agency. 

### Description of Source Category This section provides an overall description of the source cat egory and the intent of the control measure. The source category is presented in two se ctions, background and regulatory history. The ba ckground has basic information about the control measure such as the number of sources in the Basin, descripti on of emission sources, and pollutants.
The regulatory history contains information regarding existi ng regulatory control of the source category such as applicab le District rules or regulati ons and if the source category was identified in the 1999 or prior AQMPs.


### Proposed Method of Control The purpose of this section is to identify potential control options an emission source can use to achieve emission reductions. If an expected performance for a control option is provided, it is intended for informational pur poses only and s hould not be interpreted as the targeted overall control efficiency for the proposed control measure. The overall control efficiency for a control measure shoul d take into account achi evable controls in the field by various subcategories within the c ontrol measure. This type of analysis is typically conducted during rule making, not in the planning stage. It has been the District's long standing po licy not to exclude any c ontrol technology and have intentionally identified as ma ny control options as possibl e to spur further technologyFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures

IV-8 

### development. Therefore, potential control opti ons described in this section do not ensure their viability when subjec t to further technology asse ssment conducted during the rulemaking process.
In addition to the proposed cont rol methods discussed in each control measure, affected sources may have the option of partially satisfying the emission reduction requirements of each control measure with compliance fl exibility programs curren tly available, or those that will become available in the future from the on-goi ng implementation of control measure CM #2003FLX- 01. Examples of comp liance flexibility programs currently available include Rule 2020 – RECLAIM Reserve and the pilot credit generation rules under Regulati on XVI – Mobile Source O ffset Programs. Future enhancements to Regulation XVI may include additional oppor tunities to generate and use credits from mobile sources which could advance the utilization of these credit rules and other compliance flexibility pr ograms similar to regulation XVI.



### Emissions Reduction
The emission reductions are estimates based on the baseline inventories prepared for the 2003 AQMP and are provided in the Control M easure Summary Table. The emissions data are based on the annual average inventor y for all five criteria pollutants. The planning inventory adjusts the emissions by taking into consideration a source category’s seasonal variations. The emissions affecting oz one concentration (i.e., VOC and NO x 

### ) are presented under the Summer Planning I nventory. The emissions section of the summary table includes the 1997, 2006, and 2010 inventory. The 2006 and 2010 emission projections reflect implementation of District adopted rules. Based on the expected reductions associated with implem enting the control measure, emission data are calculated for 2006 and 2010 assuming the im plementation of the control measure in the absence of other competing control measures.
The emission reductions listed in the summary table represent the current best estimates, which are subject to change during rule de velopment. As demons trated in previous rulemaking, the District is always seek ing maximum emission re ductions when proven technically feasible and cost-effective. For emission accounting purposes, a weighted average control efficiency is calculated base d on the targeted controls. The concept of weighted average acknowledges the fact that a control measure or rule consists of several subcategories, the emission reduction potential for each subcategory is a function of proposed emission limitation a nd the associated emission inventory. Therefore, the use of control efficiency to estimate emission reductions does not represent a commitment by the District to require em ission reductions uniformly across source categories. In addition, due to the curre nt structure of emi ssion inventory reporting system, a control measure may pa rtially affect an inventory s ource category (e.g., certain size of equipmentFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures

IV-9 

### or certain level material usage ). In this case, an impact fa ctor is incorporated into the calculation of a control efficiency to account for the fraction of inventory affected. During the rule development, the most curre nt inventory will be used. However, for tracking rate-of-progress on the SIP emi ssion reduction commitment, the approved AQMP inventory will be used. More specifi cally, emission reductions due to mandatory or voluntary, but enforceable, actions will be credited under SIP obligations.


### Rule Compliance This section was designed to satisfy requi rements in the 1990 Clea n Air Act in which EPA has indicated that it is ne cessary to have a discussion of rule compliance with each control measure. This section discusses the recordkeeping and monitoring requirements envisioned for the control measure. As di scussed under this sec tion of the control measure, the District would c ontinue to verify rule compliance through site inspections and submittal of compliance plans.



### Test Methods In addition to requiring recordkeeping and m onitoring requirements, EPA has stated that “An enforceable regulation must also contai n test procedures in order to determine whether sources are in compliance.” This s ection of the measure identifies appropriate approved District, ARB, and EPA source test methods.



### Cost Effectiveness The Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method is us ed to calculate the cost-effectiveness of each control measure. As control measur es undergo the rule making process, more detailed control costs will be developed, and therefore, may differ from the data presented here.
The cost effectiveness may overestimate actu al levels because the number of affected facilities may also include those that presen tly are not regulated by the District. As additional information on costs and more accurate numbers of affected facilities becomes available, the cost effectiveness will be revi sed and analyzed in the socioeconomic assessment report of the 2003 AQMP.


### Implementing Agency This section identifies the agency(ies) responsibility for implementing the control measure. Also included in this section is a description of any jurisdictional issues that may affect the control measure’s implementation.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures

IV-10 

### References This section identifies directly cited refere nces, or those references used to provide general background information.

## GROUP 1 COATINGS AND SOLVENTSFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CTS-07

IV-11 

### FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS AND CLEANUP SOLVENTS [VOC]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : A RCHITECTURAL C OATINGS , T HINNING AND C LEAN -U P S OLVENTS

C ONTROL M ETHODS : N EAR -Z ERO OR Z ERO -VOC C OATING F ORMULATIONS

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): A

NNUAL A VERAGE 1997 2006 2010 VOC I NVENTORY 50.9 32.7 24.0 VOC R EDUCTION 3.3 7.2 VOC R EMAINING 29.4 16.8
S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 1997 2006 2010 VOC I NVENTORY 60.0 38.5 28.3 VOC R EDUCTION 3.9 8.5 VOC R EMAINING 34.6 19.8

C ONTROL C OST : $20,000 P ER T ON O F V OC

I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : S CAQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY This control measure proposes to further redu ce VOC emissions from various architectural coating categories and thinning and cleanup solvents used in this industry. This control measure was part of the 1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone SIP Revision for the South Coast Air Basin.


### Background Architectural Industrial Maintenance (AIM) coa tings are used to beautify and protect homes, office buildings, factories, and their appurtena nces on a variety of surfaces - metal, wood, plastic, concrete, wallboard, etc. These coatings are applied to the interior and exterior of homes and offices, factory floors, bridges, stop signs, roofs, swimming pools, driveways, etc. AIM coatings may be applied by brush, roller or spray gun; by consumers, painting contractors, or maintenance personnel.
Despite existing regulations, AIM coatings still re present one of the largest non-mobile sources of VOC emissions in the Basin. Because AIM coating surfaces cannot be painted within an enclosure vented to an air pollution control de vice, the only cost-effective method to control VOC emissions from AIM coatings is to reduce the VOC content of the coatings.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CTS-07

IV-12 Control Measure #CTS-07 was included in the 1994 and 1997 AQMPs as well as the 1999 amendment to the 1997 ozone SIP. This control measure proposed to reduce VOC emissions through the establishment of lower VOC-limits a nd the expansion of the applicability of Rule 1113. At that time, the proposed reduction target fo r this control measure was set at 75 percent. Control Measure #CTS-07 has been implemented, in part, with the amendments to Rule 1113 in 1996 and 1999 which have achieved greater than 50 percent emission reduction from this source category. 

### Regulatory History District Rule 1113 - Architectural Coatings, was originally adopted on September 2, 1977, to regulate VOC emissions from the application of architectural coatings. Since its adoption, the rule has been amended numerous times to inco rporate more stringent VOC limits as technology for lower-VOC coatings has become availabl e. The November 1996 amendment to Rule 1113 implemented both Control Measure #94CTS-07 a nd Phase I of Control Measure #97CTS-07. This amendment lowered the VOC limits for some coating categories based on the concept of coating reformulation, increased the VOC limit for other coating categories, and addressed issues raised since the amendments of September 6, 1991. The amendment to Rule 1113, adopted on May 14, 1999, implemented Phase II of the Control Measure #97CTS-07 by lowering interim and final VOC limits for new and existing coating categories.
Following the adoption of the 1999 amendments, three lawsuits were filed against the District relative to Rule 1113 which were subsequently consolidated as one matter by the court. Ultimately, the appellate court ruled that the May 14, 1999, amendments were improperly adopted due to inadequate noticing of the public hearing. On December 6, 2002, in response to the ruling from the appellate court, the Ma y 14, 1999, amendments were readopted following proper procedures along with changes resulting from the new proposed compliance dates of January 1, 2003, and January 1, 2004, for the interim rule limits as well as other clarifying changes.
Subsequent to the May 14, 1999 amendments to Rule 1113, CARB developed a revised suggested control measure (SCM) in June 2000 for architectural coatings that was largely based on the interim limits and the averaging provision of Rule 1113. The SCM, which has January 1, 2003 as the main compliance date for most coati ng categories, has been adopted by 16 of the 35 local air districts in California.

U.S. EPA finalized a national architectural coa tings rule in September 1998. The National Rule went into effect throughout the country, incl uding all California districts, on September 13, 1999. The National Rule contains over 20 categories that are not typically included in district rules. In addition, for many of the categories that are in both the district rules and the National Rule, the National Rule has definitions that diffe r significantly from those of the district rules and VOC limits that generally are equal to or less stringent than existing district rules.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CTS-07

IV-13 

### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL Implementation of Phase 3 of Control Measur e CTS-07 will rely on near-zero or zero VOC formulations for several architectural coati ng categories including, but not limited to, cleanup and thinning solvents, clear wood finishes, exte rior opaque stains, semi-transparent stains, sanding sealers, and waterproofi ng sealers. Control Measure CTS-07(P3), presented here, seeks to achieve the emission reductions necessary to a ttain the same level of remaining emissions as set forth in the 1999 Amendments to the 1997 Oz one SIP. On-going technical evaluation of coating performance and research to further de velop low-VOC and/or low-reactive coating or clean-up materials can provide further reduction opportunities. The District will work in coordination with CARB and other interested st akeholders when exploring further reductions from reactivity-based approaches.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION

The estimated emission reductions for 2006 and 2010 are summarized in the Control Measure Summary. The 2010 emission inventory (summer planning inventory) for this category is estimated to be 28.3 tons of VOC per day. C ontrol Measure #2003CTS-07 (P3) is estimated to achieve 8.5 tons of VOC per day reduction from this baseline.



### RULE COMPLIANCE This control measure would incorporate rule co mpliance requirements similar to those identified in Rule 1113.



### TEST METHODS Test methods include the following:

• U.S. EPA Reference Method 24, Code of Fede ral Regulations Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A - Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface Coatings. District Section III, Method 22, Determination of Exempt Compounds;

• ASTM Test Method D1613-85 - Determination of Acid Content of Coating;

• District Method 303, 304, 311, and

• District Methods 19 and 22 - Laboratory Met hods of Analysis for Enforcement SamplesSection III, Determination of Exempt Compounds Content.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost effectiveness of this control measure is calculated to be approximately $20,000 per ton. This value is based on an incremental reformulation cost of $8.00 per gallon for the architectural coating categories targeted by this control measure.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CTS-07

IV-14 

### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY/SCHEDULE The District has authority to regulate VOC emi ssions from architectural coating categories.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CTS-10

IV-15 

### MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL COATINGS AND SOLVENT OPERATIONS [VOC]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : M ISCELLANEOUS I NDUSTRIAL C OATINGS AND S OLVENT O PERATIONS

C ONTROL M ETHODS : S TEP I: I NVENTORY AND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

S TEP II: D EVELOPMENT AND I MPLEMENTATION OF C ONTROL S TRATEGIES I NCLUDING , B UT N OT L IMITED T O , N EAR -Z ERO OR Z ERO -VOC C OATING AND S OLVENT F ORMULATIONS AND A DD -O N C ONTROLS

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): A

NNUAL A VERAGE 1997 2006 2010 VOC I NVENTORY 13.7 13.9 15.2 VOC R EDUCTION 0.9 2.8 VOC R EMAINING 13.0 12.4
S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 1997 2006 2010 VOC I NVENTORY 14.5 14.9 16.3 VOC R EDUCTION 0.9 3.0 VOC R EMAINING 14.0 13.3

C ONTROL C OST : U P T O $13,500 P ER T ON OF VOC

I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : S CAQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY

Control Measure #CTS-10 is a new control measure that seeks to reduce emissions from sources under Control Measure #99 ADV-CTS, which wa s part of the 1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone SIP Revision for the South Coast Air Quality Basin, as well as other sources that may or may not already be subject to Regulation IV or Regulation XI rules. Control Measure #99 ADV-CTS included miscellaneous industrial coating and solvent operations.


### Background Consistent with state and federal law, the Distri ct maintains an emissions inventory for a wide variety of source categories and industries. The emissions inventory for the Basin includes nearly 180 different major source categories a nd, within these major categories, there are multiple source categories that are further defi ned. The miscellaneous industrial coating and solvent operations targeted for this control meas ure represent all industrial coating and solvent categories covered under Regulation IV and Regula tion XI rules as well as other miscellaneous source categories that are not yet regulated. In addition, Level II contingency control measuresFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CTS-10

IV-16 identified in the 1997 AQMP (presented in the ne xt table) will also be evaluated under this control measure.



### Table of Level II VOC Contingency Control Measures from 1997 AQMP

AQMP Measure Number Title Pollutant

CTS-02A Emission Reductions from Electronic Components Manufacturing VOC

CTS-02D(1) Further Emission Reductions from Marine Coating Operations (Rule 1106) VOC

CTS-02D(2) Further Emission Reductions from Pleasure Craft Coating Operations (Rule 1106.1) VOC

CTS-02G Further Emission Reductions from Paper, Fabric, and Film Coating Operations (Rule 1128) VOC

CTS-02I(1) Further Emission Reductions from Screen Printing Operations (Rule 1130.1) VOC

CTS-02J Further Emission Reductions from Wood Products (Rule 1136) VOC

CTS-02K Further Emission Reductions from Aerospace Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations (Rule 1124) VOC

CTS-02L Further Emission Reductions from Motor Vehicle Assembly Line Coating Operations (Rule 1115) VOC

PRC-02 Further Emission Reductions from Bakeries (Rule 1153) VOC

PRC-05 Emission Reductions fro m Malt Beverage Production Facilities and Wine or Brandy Making Facilities VOC

The objective of this control measure is to further assess emissions from miscellaneous industrial coating and solvent operations. An inventory and technical assessment will be conducted to seek further emission reduction opportunities from these categories. The assessments will identify those emissions within these source categories that can be controlled in a cost-effective manner under an existing rule or regulation or those emissions that require the development of new rules. Based on the resu lts of the assessments, the District will develop and implement specific strategies (e.g., reformul ation, control equipment, etc.) to reduce VOC emissions. Some of the solvent operation categor ies that need to be further assessed include, but are not limited to, aerospace handwipe operati ons, lubricants (e.g., diluted with mineral spirits and vanishing oils), and use of alcohol or other solvents in manufacturing and clean roomFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CTS-10

IV-17 maintenance. Other categories such as janito rial supplies, aerosols, and other consumer products are under CARB’s jurisdiction.


### Regulatory History Currently, the District has a number of specific rules for various categories of coatings and solvents. The source categories under this control measure represent a wide variety of industrial coating and solvent operations. The type of operation, industry, and size of the source would determine which rule(s) or regulation(s) that these sources would be regulated under.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL Based on current information regarding miscella neous industrial coatings and solvents, this control measure would be implemented in two step s. The first step represents assessment of various industrial coatings and solvents cate gories to determine where additional emission reductions may be feasible. Based on the results of the first step, the appropriate control strategies to reduce VOC emissions beyond existi ng rules and regulations would be developed, based on near-zero or zero-VOC coating and solvent formulations and technologies (e.g., waterbased, UV coatings, powder coatings, add-on controls ). Implementation of this control measure is expected to be conducted in several separate rulemaking phases with an overall VOC reduction target of three tons per day by 2010.
Significant advancements have been made relativ e to the development and application of zeroor near-zero VOC coating formulations. Powder coatings, UV coatings for various substrates, zero-VOC interior flat architectural coating mate rials, as well as waterborne lacquers for wood products, are examples of technological advancem ents that have developed over the 5 to 10 years. Also, since this control measure is pa rtially targeting small and unpermitted sources, in addition to the proposed control methods, i nnovative implementation mechanisms are also needed to successfully carry out the control program. Reactivity issues for VOC-containing materials associated with this control measure w ill also be reviewed. The District will work in coordination with CARB and other interested st akeholders when exploring further reductions from reactivity-based approaches.
Potential control strategies from source categorie s affected by this measure would also include the re-examination of the exemptions from the source specific rules under Regulation XI as well as a comparison of the VOC limits from other districts.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION The estimated emission inventory and emissi on reductions are summarized in the Control Measure Summary.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Rule compliance would be similar to complia nce requirements under Regulation XI - Source Specific Rules. Recordkeeping and monitoring requirements would be similar to Rule 109.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CTS-10

IV-18 

### TEST METHODS Test methods include the following:

• U.S. EPA Test Methods 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D, measurements of ventilation rate in a hood or enclosure and District Method 1.1, measure of traverse points;

• U.S. EPA Reference Method 24, Code of Fede ral Regulations Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A - Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface Coatings. District Section III, Method 22, Determination of Exempt Compounds;

• U.S. EPA Test Method 25, 25A, or District Method 25.1 for the determination of total organic compound emissions;

• ASTM Method D2879;

• ASTM Method D-1078-78, Standard Test Method for Distillation Range of Volatile Organic Liquids;

• ASTM Test Method D1613-85 - Determination of Acid Content of Coating;

• District Method 303, 304, 313, 308, 311, and 313; and

• District Methods 19 and 22 - Laboratory Met hods of Analysis for Enforcement SamplesSection III, Determination of Exempt Compounds Content.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been specifically determined, but is expected to be no more than $13,500 per ton of VOC reduced. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact associated w ith implementing this control measure and will provide specific cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY/SCHEDULE The District has authority to regulate VOC em issions from industrial coating and solvent operations.

## GROUP 2 Petroleum Operations and Fugitive VOC SourcesFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003FUG-05

IV-19 

### EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM FUGITIVE SOURCES [VOC]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : F UGITIVE E MISSION S OURCES

C ONTROL M ETHODS : S TEP I: CHARACTERIZATION AND Q UANTIFICATION OF E MISSIONS

S TEP II: T ECHNOLOGY A SSESSMENT AND D EVELOPMENT AND I MPLEMENTATION OF C ONTROL S TRATEGIES I NCLUDING , BUT NOT L IMITED TO , A DD -O N C ONTROLS , I MPROVED INSPECTION AND M AINTENANCE P ROGRAMS , AND P ROCESS C HANGES

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): A

NNUAL A VERAGE 1997 2006 2010 VOC I NVENTORY 18.2 16.7 14.8 VOC R EDUCTION 1.1 2.0 VOC R EMAINING 15.6 12.8
S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 1997 2006 2010 VOC I NVENTORY 18.3 16.9 15.0 VOC R EDUCTION 1.1 2.0 VOC R EMAINING 15.8 13.0

C ONTROL C OST : U P T O $13,500 P ER T ON OF VOC

I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : S CAQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY

Control Measure #FUG-05 is a new control measure that groups together three control measures that were part of the 1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone SIP Revision fo r the South Coast Air Basin. The control measures combined here in include: Control Measure #99FUG-04 – Further Control of Emissions from Fugitive Sources; Control Measure #99FUG-05 – Further Emission Reductions from Large Fugitive VOC Sour ces; and, Control Measure #99ADV-FUG – LongTerm Control for Fugitive Emissions.
The emission sources targeted under this control measure include a variety of fugitive emissions sources including, but not limited to, oil and ga s production facilities, petroleum and chemical products processing and transfer facilities, refinery terminals, and other sources contributing to fugitive emissions.


### Background Control Measure #99FUG-04 targeted VOC emi ssion reduction from fugitive sources from petroleum- and chemical-related industries in general, including refineries, oil and gasFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003FUG-05

IV-20 production fields, natural gas processing plants a nd pipeline transfer stations. Control Measure #99FUG-04 also called for an emissions invent ory evaluation for these sources and the development of control options, if necessary.
Control Measure #99FUG-05 focused on reducing emission from the top 100 noncoating/solvent-related VOC-emitting facilities. The type of facilities targeted under this control measure included: gasoline refineries and terminals, oil and gas production facilities, chemical plants, and manufacturing facilities. In 1993, the population of facilities targeted in this control measure constituted only two percen t of the total population of stationary point sources while contributing approximately 34 percen t of the total VOC emissions inventory from stationary point sources.
Control Measure #99ADV-FUG was a long-term control measure included in the 1999 amendment to the 1997 Ozone SIP for the South Coast Air Basin and was intended to further reduce emissions from the source categories described in the control measures described above.


### Regulatory History Fugitive emissions are currently regulated under various AQMD rules including Rules 461 – Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing, 462 – Organi c Liquid Loading, 463 – Storage of Organic Liquids, 1173 – Control of Volatile Organic Co mpound Leaks and Releases from Components at Petroleum and Chemical Plants, 1176 – Su mps and Wastewater Separators, and 1178 - Further Reductions of VOC Emissions from Storage Tanks at Petroleum Facilities.
Rule 1178, adopted in December 2001, implemen ted Control Measures #99FUG-03 – Further Emission Reductions from Floating Roof Tanks and portions of #99FUG-04 and Phase I of Control Measure #99FUG-05. Rule 1178 would achieve, upon full implementation, VOC emission reductions of 1.4 tons per day by reducing evaporative emission losses and minimizing leaks from external floating roof tanks, intern al floating roof tanks, fixed roof tanks and pressure-vacuum vents at specified petroleum facilities.
Proposed Rule 1173, was amended in December 2002, to implement the remainder of Control Measure #99FUG-04 and Phase II of Control M easure #99FUG-05. These amendments further reduce fugitive VOC emissions from components at petroleum facilities and chemical plants by requiring an inspection and repair program for h eavy liquids (that are currently exempt), and reducing the leak thresholds and time to repa ir components in light liquid service. The amendments also required the monitoring and reporti ng of releases from pressure relief devices. The amendments are expected to achieve reductions of 0.57 tons of VOC per day.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL This measure will implement CM#99 ADV-FUG, the remaining portion of CM#99 FUG-04, and CM#99 FUG-05 (P2) and (P3).
This control measure will be implemented in two steps: 1) the development of data to characterize and quantify fugitive VOC emissi ons from the petroleum, chemical-related industries, and other manufacturing and 2) th e assessment of technology to determine theFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003FUG-05

IV-21 availability and feasibility of technological soluti ons and the design and implementation of costeffective control options that would further redu ce fugitive VOC emission from these industries. Potential controls include, but are not limited to, enhanced inspection and maintenance programs, leakless valves, vapor recovery devices, and control equipment (e.g., for tank degassing).

The emission reductions associated with th e December 6, 2002 amendments to Rule 1173, will be credited toward the reductions targeted in this control measure.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Emission inventory and estimated reductions are summarized in the Control Measure Summary. The proposed control measure is expected to achieve at least two tons per day VOC reductions in 2010.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Rule compliance would be similar to comp liance requirements under existing Rules 461, 462, 463, 1173, 1176, and 1178. Recordkeeping and monito ring requirements would be similar to Rule 109.



### TEST METHODS Test methods include the following:

• U.S. EPA Method 18 – Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emission by Gas Chromatography, for use in Determining Efficiency of Vapor Recovery Systems.

• U.S. EPA Test Method 21 - Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds Leaks, for use in Determining Vapor Tightness.

• U.S. EPA Test Method 25 – Determination of Total Gaseous Non-methane Organic Emissions as Carbon.

• U.S. EPA Test Method 25A – Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a Flame Ionization Analyzer.

• ASTM Method 1078 – Organic Liquid Storage for us e in determining the true vapor pressure limits.

• ASTM Method D-1078-78, Standard Test Method for Distillation Range of Volatile Organic Liquids;

• SCAQMD Test Method 25.1 - Determination of Total Gaseous Non-Methane Organic Emissions as Carbon.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003FUG-05

IV-22 • SCAQMD Test Method 50.1 – Determination of Total Non-Methane Organic Vapors from Organic Loading and Storage, for use in De termining Efficiency of Vapor Recovery Systems.

• SCAQMD Test Method 303 – Determination of Exempt Compounds, for use in Determining Exempt Compounds

• SCAQMD Test Method 315 – Determination of Hydrogen Sulfide Mercaptan in Oil and Sludge Samples, for use in Determining Hydrogen Sulfide Concentrations in Crude Oils.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been specifically determined, but is expected to be no more than $13,500 per ton of VOC reduced. The overall cost effectiveness of Rule 1178 was estimated at $9,600 to $11,000 per ton VOC emissions reduced which is assumed to be at the high end of the likely co st-effectiveness of Control Measure FUG-05. The cost-effectiveness of Rule 1173 amended on December 6, 2002, was estimated to be approximately $150 per ton of VOC reduced. This value represents a weighted average of the costs of the control requirements, with the great est weight afforded to additional inspection and maintenance programs set forth in the amendments.
The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact associated with implementing this control measure and will provide specific cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has authority to regulate fugitive VOC emissions sources.

## GROUP 3 Combustion SourcesFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CMB-07

IV-23 

### EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY FLARES [ALL POLLUTANTS]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : R EFINERY F LARES C ONTROL M ETHODS : S TEP I—I NVENTORY A SSESSMENT S TEP II—D EVELOPMENT AND I MPLEMENTATION OF C ONTROL T ECHNOLOGIES E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): A

NNUAL A VERAGE 1997 2006* 2010* SO X I NVENTORY 4.4 4.3 4.3 SO X R EDUCTION 2.1 2.1 SO X R EMAINING 2.2 2.2

C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD
* Only SO x emissions are estimated, however there will be concurrent VOC, NO x , CO, and PM10 emission reductions from this control measure. 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background
This control measure is intended for flares at refineries and is not intended for flares at landfills or POTWs. Blowdown systems are designed and installed at petroleum refineries to provide for safe containment or safe release of liquids and gases that must be vented. These systems are used for emptying and venting vessels during sc heduled maintenance and turn-around or during emergency upsets. Such systems generally consis t of a series of venting manifolds which lead from the process equipment to a blowdown recovery subsystem (e.g., storage tanks) and flares.
Flares are incendiary devices which ensure safe combustion of waste gases when the blowdown volume exceeds the storage capacity of the recovery subsystem. Thus, they provide the last opportunity to treat blowdown gases before they are released into the atmosphere.
The completeness of combustion in flares is determined by flame temperature, residence time in the combustion zone, turbulent mixing of the components to complete the oxidation process, and available oxygen for free radical formation. If the combustion is complete, there is greater than 98 percent VOC destruction (EPA, Apr il 1991) and the VOCs are converted to carbon dioxide and water. However, if there is in complete combustion, some of the VOCs remain unaltered or are converted to other organic com pounds (e.g. aldehydes or acids). In addition to VOCs being emitted during incomplete combustion, the flaring process can emit SO x , NO x , CO, and PM10.


### Regulatory History Measure A15 of the 1982 AQMP Revision proposed increasing the use of blowdown recovery systems to reduce emissions from flare operations . Measure A15 was originally scheduled forFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CMB-07

IV-24 adoption in 1985. Consideration of adoption, however, was postponed to provide additional time to collect background information regarding flare operations and alternative control options. The ARB, the District, and other local air pollution control districts have worked to collect this information.

In 1984, the ARB contracted with CH 2 M Hill, an engineering firm, to evaluate the feasibility of continuously monitoring petroleum refinery flare emissions. Based on CH 2 M Hill’s analysis and public testimony, the ARB has determined that monitoring devices are technologically feasible, available, and economically reasonable to identify and record continuously the on/off status of refinery flares to dete rmine refinery flare emissions. The ARB also directed its staff to work with local districts to develop rules requi ring the use of these devices and to encourage districts to require refiners to provide grab sa mple composition analysis of flare feed stream gases. In 1986, the ARB handed this project over to the local air pollution districts.
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control Dist rict (SBAPCD) adopted Rule 359, Flares and Thermal Oxidizers, on June 28, 1994. The rule re quires flare operators to minimize flare gas volume, use technology standards on open flares and limit fuel sulfur content for outer continental shelf (OCS) sources. It also re quires reduction in planned flaring and limits emissions for thermal oxidizers.
Federal Regulations (CFR) 60.18, Revision 1987, sets New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for flares that operate continuously or for emergency purposes. The NSPS for new flare systems is a 98 percent combustion efficien cy. The Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guidelines listed as “Achieved in Practice, or Contained in EPA Approved SIP” for refinery flares are: ground level, shrouded and steam assisted.
In January 1998, the District Governing Board adopted Rule 1118 – Emissions from Refinery Flares in order to implement Step 1 of Control Measure #97CMB-07. Rule 1118 required petroleum refinery operations to monitor, record, and report data on gas flaring operations.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL This measure would consist of a two-step appr oach. During Step I, data collected from implementing Rule 1118 would be evaluated and assessed to develop an accurate emissions inventory from flare operations. Th e District is currently in the process of implementing Step I. Emission data from the implementation of Rule 1118 has been received and is being evaluated to determine the source of emissions and to develop an emissions inventory.
If flare operations are determined to represent a significant source of emissions, Step II of the control measure will be implemented. Step II w ill consist of a thorough investigation of control options to identify the most feasible and cost-effective control strategies available to reduce emissions from refinery flares. The District w ill work with refineries to identify appropriate control options. Control options could include physical modifications and improvements to operation and maintenance procedures to prevent or minimize upset conditions. Control options may also include implementation of flaring mi nimization plans. Regardless of the control option, the District will ensure that safety cons iderations are taken into account. Completion of Steps I and II are expected to occur by 2004.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CMB-07

IV-25 

### EMISSIONS REDUCTION The emissions inventory for SO x is shown in the summary table. Based on preliminary data, it is estimated that this control measure will re sult in an overall reduction of 50% through better management practices to minimize unnecessary flar ing. There will also be concurrent emission reductions in VOC, NO x , CO, and PM10.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Compliance with this control measure would depend on the control requirements for flare operations developed in Step II. Implementati on of proposed control could be either through a source specific rule or MOU with individual facilities to seek maximum emission reductions while considering potentially unique operating constraints.



### TEST METHODS Any source test (or monitoring) shall follow EP A or approved District guidelines or Test Methods. Alternate guidelines may be used, provi ded they are first approved by the EPA, ARB, and the District. Source test methods used fo r Rule 1118 compliance would be applicable under this control measure. These include:

• The higher gross heating value of bent ga sses shall be determined by ASTM Method D 2382-88, ASTM Method D 3588-91, or ASTM Method D 4891-89

• The total sulfur content shall be determin e by District Method 307- 91 or ASTM Method D 5504-94



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact a ssociated with implementing this control measure and will provide cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to regulate emissions from petroleum refinery flares.



### REFERENCES Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control Distri ct. Proposed Rule 359 Staff Report. June 24, 1994.
South Coast Air Quality Management Distri ct. Final Air Quality Management Plan . October 1982.
United States Environmental Protection Ag ency, OAOPS Control Cost Manual (Fourth Edition), Chapter 7: “Flares,” April 1991.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CMB-07

IV-26 Western States Petroleum Association. Meeting with SCAQMD. June 28, 1994Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003CMB-09

IV-27 

### EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM PETROLEUM FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS [PM10, NH 3 

### ]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : P ETROLEUM R EFINERY FCCU S C ONTROL M ETHODS : C ONTROL T ECHNOLOGIES FOR P ARTICULATE M ATTER AND P RECURSORS OF P ARTICULATE M ATTER S UCH A S SO X AND AMMONIA ( E

. G ., DRY OR WET ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS (ESP), SO X REDUCING CATALYSTS , WET SCRUBBERS , SELECTIVE OR NON

- SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION (SCR OR NSCR), BAGHOUSES , ALTERNATIVES TO AMMONIA INJECTION , AND / OR FEED HYDRODESULFURIZATION ).
E MISSIONS ( TONS /D AY ):

A

NNUAL A VERAGE 1997 2006 2010
PM10 (NH 3 ) I NVENTORY (1) 3.5

- 6.1 (1.7) 3.7

- 6.3 (1.8) 3.7

- 6.3 (1.8) PM10 (NH 3 ) R EDUCTION (2, 3, 4) 0.0 2.1

- 4.7 (1.6) PM10 (NH 3 ) R EMAINING 0.0 1.6 (0.2)
C ONTROL C OST : $3,500

- $11,500 PER TON PM10 REDUCED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD (1) Information for ammonia is in parent heses. 2.6 tpd – 5.5 tpd of the emissi ons inventory is from condensable PM10 (2) 1.5 tpd – 4.3 tpd of the emissions reduction is from condensable PM10 (3) Ammonia reduction of 1.6 tpd is estimated with an assump tion that none of the ammonia emitted will form condensable PM10 (4) The PM10 emission reduction will be modified to reflect Board acti on on Proposed Rule 1105.1. 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background Six petroleum refineries in the Basin currently ope rate fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCUs). Catalytic cracking is the most important and wide ly used refinery process for converting heavy oils into more valuable gasoline and lighter products. The process uses a very fine aluminum silicate catalyst commonly called zeolite that beha ves like a fluid when aerated with a vapor. The fluidized catalyst is circulated continuously between a reactor and a regenerator and acts as a vehicle to transfer heat from the regenerator to the oil feed in the reactor. The cracking reaction is endothermic and the regeneration reaction is exothermic.
As the cracking reaction progresses, the catalys t surface is gradually coated with carbon (coke) which eventually deactivates the cracking catalys t. To remove the coke deposited, the spent catalyst is routed to the regenerator. In the re generator, the coke is burned off with air and the spent catalyst is reactivated. The regenerator can be designed and operated to either partially burn the coke on the catalyst to a mixture of carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), or completely burn the coke to CO 2 . The flue gas containing hi gh levels of CO from the regenerator is routed to a CO boiler that us es supplemental fuel to burn off the CO to CO 2 and generate steam. Some regenerators in the Dist rict are operated in a completely burn mode, the CO boiler in this case is used as a heat exchanger without the consumption of supplemental fuel.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003CMB-09

IV-28 It is during the regeneration cycle that much of th e catalyst is lost in the form of catalyst fines escaping the regenerator with the flue gas. To recover the regenerated catalyst, the flue gas is routed to a series of cyclones and electrostatic precipitators (ESPs). Some refineries in the District inject ammonia in the flue gas to increas e the gas stream’s resistivity and the particles’ cohesiveness with the hope to enhance the partic le removal efficiency of the ESPs. After passing through the ESPs, the flue gas leaves stack at about 500-700 o F. The flue gas typically contains sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, par ticulate matter, ammonia, water vapor, and oxygen.
1996-1997 Source Test Results and Installation of New ESP in 1993
In 1996-1997, in order to determine the PM and PM 10 inventory for FCCUs, the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) coordinated intensiv e testing at six operating refineries in the District using a combination of SCAQMD Me thod 5.2 and EPA Method 201A. Most important aspects of the test results are:

 Total PM and PM10 measured from the si x existing FCCUs were 6.2 tons/day and 6.1 tons/day, respectively. The test results showed that more than 98% of the particulate matter emitted from the six FCCU regenerators were PM10.

 The total filterable PM collected on the in-st ack filter and out-of-stack filter was about 0.74 ton/day, while the remaining of the PM10 was c ondensable particulate matter formed as the flue gas was cooled down in the sampling trai n or in the atmosphere. The test results suggested that it is extremely important to measure and account for the condensable particulate matter formed at the temperat ure regimes below stack temperatures. Furthermore, the test results suggested that condensable particulate matter formed at lower temperature regimes, can be effectively re duced by focusing on control technologies for precursor of particulate matter such as sulfur oxides and ammonia.

 Two refineries achieved extremely low overall particulate matter emissions during the 96-97 tests. One refinery used SO x reducing catalysts to reduce SO x emissions, and the other did not use ammonia to enhance its ESP’s efficien cy when the tests were conducted. The 96-97 test results from these two refineries suggested that using SO x reducing catalyst or reducing the amount of ammonia injection could be viable control options for particulate matter from FCCU’s regenerators.

In 1993, one refinery in the District replaced its dry ESP with a brand new, larger capacity ESP that has manufacturer's guarantee for a mass em ission rate of 3-lbs/hr (or 0.002 gr/dscf) filterable particulate matter at stack temperatures, or approximately 0.004 gr/dscf at 180-200 0 f. This refinery also uses SO x reducing catalyst. The testing in 2001 and 2002 showed that this refinery achieved extremely low filterable and condensable particulate matter emissions, even lower than the emissions achieved at the tw o refineries mentioned above in 1996-1997. The particulate emission reduction for this control m easure therefore could be based on the emission levels achieved at these three refineries.
Other Sources for PM10 and Ammonia InventoryFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003CMB-09

IV-29 In addition to the 1996-1997 tests coordinated by WSPA, the total PM10 measured based on other tests conducted by the refineries and the Di strict was approximately 3.5 tons/day, in which 0.9 tons/day was filterable PM10.
Direct sampling for ammonia emissions was not performed during the 1996-1997 tests coordinated by WSPA. However, several test s conducted by the District showed that the ammonia emissions from each FCCU could vary from 10 lbs/hr to 125 lbs/hr depending on the amount of ammonia injection rate at the time of testing. The invent ory of ammonia from FCCUs is estimated to be 1.8 tons/day based on various test results and AB2588 reports.


### Regulatory History

Particulate matter emissions from FCCUs are not currently regulated under a source-specific District rule. The refineries are required to apply for permit to construct and operate FCCUs pursuant to Regulation II. FCCUs are curre ntly regulated under District Rules 401, 402, 404 and 405. Rule 401 regulates visible emissions of any air contaminant discharged into the atmosphere; Rule 402 limits discharge from FCCU s that may cause a public nuisance; Rule 404 and Rule 405 regulate the particulate matter em issions based on concentration and weight criteria, respectively. In addition, EPA’s Ne w Source Performance Standards (NSPS) CFR 40, Part 60, Subpart J sets forth emission limits fo r any FCCU constructed after January 17, 1984. And EPA's National Emission Standards for H azardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) CFR Part 63, Subpart UUU sets forth emission limits for any FCCU that is located at a major source of HAP emissions.
The District is currently developing Propos ed Rule 1105.1 – Reduction of PM10 and Ammonia Emissions From Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units. Proposed Rule 1105.1 is designed to implement the 1997 AQMP Control Measure CM #97CMB-09. Specifically, Proposed Rule 1105.1 will specify emission standards for filterabl e PM10 and ammonia slip, as well as require annual source tests and applicable monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Proposed Rule 1105.1 is scheduled for adoption in 2003.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL The proposed technologies of additional control for particulate matter and precursors of particulate matter from FCCUs are technologies su ch as dry or wet electrostatic precipitators (ESP), SO x reducing catalysts, wet scrubbers, selec tive or non-selective catalytic reduction (SCR or NSCR), baghouses, alternatives to ammonia injection, and/or feed hydrodesulfurization.



### EMISSION REDUCTION The projected PM10 inventories for 1997, 2006, and 2010 are provided in the Control Measure Summary. Most condensable emissions are a mmonia salts and direct byproducts of ammonia combining with nitrates, sulfates, and other em issions from FCCUs. There has been some controversy regarding whether the ammonia forms ammonia salts or is released as unreacted ammonia. If one assumes most ammonia form s condensables, the total PM10 emissions in 2010 are estimated to be 3.7 - 6.3 tons per day of which condensable particulate matter accounts forFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003CMB-09

IV-30 2.6 - 5.5 tons per day. If on th e other hand one assumes that most ammonia does not form condensables, the total ammonia emissions in 2010 is estimated to be 1.8 tons per day. The emission reduction estimated for this contro l measure is based on the PM10 and ammonia emission level achieved at the refineries. This control measure is expected to provide an overall rule effectiveness of approximately 74 percent for particulate matter and 87 percent for ammonia. The 2010 emission reductions for this control measure would be 2.1 – 4.7 tons per day of PM10, of which approximately 0.3 – 0.5 tons per day are filterable particulate matter. If one assumes that ammonia emitted will not form condensable PM10, the 2010 emission reductions for this control measure would be 0.5 tons per day of filterable PM10 and 1.6 tons per day ammonia. The PM10 emission reduction will be modified to reflect Board action on Proposed Rule 1105.1.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Compliance with this control measure may be determined and verified by source testing, monitoring operating parameters to ensure con tinuous compliance, record keeping and reporting requirements. Test reports should include at a minimum important operating parameters such as stack temperature, flue gas flow rate, ammonia in jection rate, feed rate, sulfur content of feed, type and amount of SO x reducing catalyst used, and coke burn off rate.



### TEST METHODS Monitoring or source testing for particulate matter would follow EPA or approved District guidelines or test methods such as District Method 5.2, District Method 6.1, District Draft Method 207.1, EPA Method 201, EPA Method 201A , EPA Method 202 and EPA Conditional Test Method CTM-027. Alternative guidelines or test methods may be used, provided that EPA, ARB, and the District have first approved them.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost effectiveness (incremental) of this control measure has estimated to be $3,500 - $11,500 based on replacing current ESPs with brand new ESPs. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact associated w ith implementing this control measure and will revise the cost effectiveness information, as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has authority to regulate emissions from petroleum refineries.



### REFERENCES Almega – Source Test Report - Determination of Particulate Matter and PM10 Emissions from Refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit - Mob il Oil Corporation, Almega Environmental & Technical Services Inc., October 1996. (SCAQMD ASTD Source Test File #97010).
Almega – Source Test Report - Determination of Particulate Matter and PM10 Emissions from Refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit - Te xaco Refining and Marketing Inc., AlmegaFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003CMB-09

IV-31 Environmental & Technical Services Inc., August 1996. (SCAQMD ASTD Source Test File #97011).
Almega – Source Test Report - Determination of Particulate Matter and PM10 Emissions from Unit 61-ST-1 - Ultramar Inc., Almega Environm ental & Technical Services Inc., October 1996. (SCAQMD ASTD Source Test File #97009).

Carnot – Particulate Matter Source Test Results . Prepared for Arco Los Angeles Refinery, Carnot, December 1996. (SCAQMD ASTD Source Test File #97047).
Energy – Source Testing to Determine PM10 and Pa rticulate Matter Emissions from a Refinery FCCU Equipped with an ESP and CO Boile r - Chevron Products Company, Energy and Environmental Research Corporation, May 1997. (SCAQMD ASTD Source Test File #R97215).
EPA – Operation and Maintenance Manual for Electrostatic Precipitators, U.S. EPA, EPA/625/1-85/017, 1985.
EPA – Stationary Source Control Techniques Docu ment Technique for Fine Particulate Matter, U.S. EPA, NTIS PB99-116493, October 1998.
EPA – 40 CFR Part 51, Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of State Implementation Plans, Method for Measurement of Condensable Particul ate Emissions from Stationary Sources, Final Rule, Federal Register, Volume 56, No. 242, Page 65433-38, December 1991.

EPA – Method 201, Determination of PM10 Emissions – Exhaust Gas Recycle Procedures, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M, 1991.

EPA – Method 201A, Determination of PM10 Emissi ons - Constant Sampling Rate Procedures, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M, 1991.

EPA – Method 202, Determination of Condensable Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M, 1991.

EPA – Conditional Test Method CTM-027.
SCAQMD – Method 5.2, Determination of Partic ulate Matter Emissions from Stationary Sources Using Heated Probe and Filter, March 1989.
SCAQMD – Method 6.1, Determination of Sulfuric Acid and Sulfur Oxides from Stationary Sources, March 1989.
SCAQMD – Draft Method 207.1, Determination of Ammonia from Stationary Sources.
SCAQMD – Final Air Quality Management Plan, 1997.
STAPPA/ALAPCO – Controlling Particulate Matter under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of Options, July 1996.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003CMB-09

IV-32Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003CMB-10

IV-33 

### ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS FOR NO X 

### RECLAIM [NO X 

### ]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : NO X RECLAIM F ACILITIES C ONTROL M ETHODS : A LL A VAILABLE C ONTROL M ETHODS

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):

A

NNUAL A VERAGE 1997 2006 2010
NO X I NVENTORY 61.9 34.2 34.2
NO X R EDUCTION TBD 3.0
NO X R EMAINING TBD 31.2
C ONTROL C OST : $7,000 PER TON NO X REDUCED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY As of the end of the 2000 compliance year, there were approximately 335 NO x facilities in the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLA IM) Program. The RECLAIM program includes facilities with NO x emissions greater than or equal to four tons per year in 1990 or any subsequent year. NO x facilities in the RECLAIM program have a wide range of equipment such as boilers, heaters, furnaces, ovens, kilns, internal combustion engines, and turbines.

This control measure identifies a series of control approaches that can be implemented if additional emission reductions are needed from the NO x RECLAIM program. Depending on the control strategy implemented, this control measure may affect all NO x RECLAIM facilities or a portion of the facilities based on their annual emissions or the type of equipment at the facility.


### Background Under the RECLAIM program, facilities are issued NO x and/or SO x allocations. Allocations decline annually until 2003, and remain constant th ereafter. To meet their annual allocation, facilities have the option of installing polluti on control equipment, changing operations, or purchasing RECLAIM Trading Credits (RTCs).

Additional emission reductions from RECLAIM may be needed to meet the federal “as expeditiously as practicable” and the state “all feasible measures” requirements. When the RECLAIM program was adopted, it was designed to achieve a Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) level of emission reducti ons. As BARCT is updated to reflect improvements in pollution control equipment, additional reductions from the RECLAIM program may be possible.
During late 2000, the combination of the energy crisis and delayed installation of pollution control equipment resulted in high RTC prices. A series of mechanisms are now in place toFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003CMB-10

IV-34 stabilize RTC prices. As part of the rule amendment proceeding and program evaluation, both U.S. EPA and ARB have request ed the District to revisit the ending allocation for the RECLAIM NO x program. 

### Regulatory History On October 15, 1993, the AQMD’s Governing Board adopted the RECLAIM program. Regulation XX – RECLAIM includes 11 rules th at specify the applicability, allocations, definitions, requirements, and monitoring, repor ting, and recordkeeping requirements. When the RECLAIM program was adopted, it originally included 392 NO x and 41 SO x commercial and industrial facilities. Since the adoption of RECLAIM, there have been a number of amendments to the RECLAIM rules.
On May 11, 2001 amendments to RECLAIM were adopted by the AQMD’s Governing Board to help stabilize RECLAIM Trading Credit (RTC) prices. This RECLAIM amendment represented the most significant change to the program as power producing facilities were removed from the RECLAIM market, compliance pl ans were required for larger facilities, and a reserve of emission reductions was established to mitigate emission increases from power plants and to increase the supply of RTCs for facilities m eeting certain criteria. During the adoption of these amendments, the Governing Board directed staff to evaluate the compliance plans, determine whether additional backstop rules are needed to make-up emissions shortfalls, and provide recommendations to the Board regarding enhancements to the RECLAIM program.
In November 2001, the AQMD staff provided a status report on compliance plans and the need for backstop rules to make-up potential emission re duction shortfalls. It was determined that a shortfall may occur in 2003, however, emission reduction projects in the RECLAIM program may mitigate this emission reduction shortfall. If the possible shortfall cannot be mitigated or there are insufficient credits in the market for future growth, implementation of backstop rules will be needed.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL There are a variety of approaches that can be implemented to achieve additional emission reductions from the RECLAIM program. The followi ng identifies four types of approaches that can be used individually or collectively. The type of approach selected and the extent that the approach is implemented, will depend on a number of factors that include, but are not limited to:

• Technical feasibility of control option(s);

• Cost-effectiveness of the control option(s);

• Growth demand to accommodate new sources;

• Equity between sources; and

• Implementation issues.



### Reduce Existing Ending AllocationsFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003CMB-10

IV-35 Under the RECLAIM program, initial allocations decline annually through the year 2003 and remain constant after 2003. This control option would seek further reductions in allocations from 2003 through 2010 and remain constant after 2010. Such reduction in allocations can be across-the-board shaving or source-specific. Similar to the existing RECLAIM program, facilities have the following options to meet their allocation: install pollution control equipment, process or other changes, or purchase RTCs.


### Overlay Source-Specific Regulations The RECLAIM rules exempt facilities from the source-specific NO x rules and regulations that were subsumed into determination of allocations . This control approach could overlay sourcespecific requirements on the RECLAIM program. RECLAIM facilities would be required to operate within their annual allocation and meet source-specific emission limit requirements. Source-specific rules include, but are not limited to:

• R1109 - Refinery Boilers and Heaters

• R1110.2 - Internal Combustion Engines >50 Brake Horsepower

• R1117 - Glass Melting Furnaces

• R1112 - Cement Kilns

• R1134 - Gas Turbines

• R1135 - Electric Power Generating Systems

• R1146 - Boilers and Heaters >5 MM Btu/hour

• R1146.1 - Boilers and Heaters 2-5 MM Btu/hour

• R1146.2 - Boilers and Heaters <2 MM Btu/hour
This control approach can incorporate, in part or whole, requirements specified under individual source-specific BARCT rules. In addition, require ments from one, several, or all rules can be implemented, depending on the amount of emission reductions targeted.


### Exclude Smaller Emitting Facilities In general, the RECLAIM program applies to facilities with annual NO x and/or SO x emissions greater than or equal to four tons per year. This control option would exclude smaller emitting facilities from the RECLAIM market. Facilities that are excluded from RECLAIM would be transitioned to the command and control requi rements and the facility cap under RECLAIM would be used for future NSR purposes.



### Bifurcated Market for Pow erplants and Non-powerplants Based on the recent CEC forecast and the implementation of Rule 2009, existing power plants as a source category are likely to be net selle rs. The District staff will be conducting an evaluation in 2003 to determine if the current trading restrictions imposed on the powerplants should be removed (i.e., rejoining the rest of RE CLAIM market). In the interest of reducing overall RECLAIM allocation, it may be beneficial to continue to set-aside the power generation industry. Under this scenario, the unused RTCs would be retired to benefit clean air and, in essence, achieve additional reductions from the RECLAIM program. The preliminary assessment indicated that the excess RTCs from the powerplants in 2010 based on the currentFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003CMB-10

IV-36 RTC holdings could be up to 2 tons per day. More detailed analysis is warranted to examine the merit of this approach.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION For the purpose of a SIP commitment, 3 tons per day of NO x reductions by 2010 is targeted with a linear declining balance between 2003 a nd 2010. The amount of additional emission reductions achievable through implementation of this control measure is subject to further technical assessment and AQMP growth projecti ons. The District staff will conduct further analysis as part of the assessment for the power plants and make recommendations to the Board as to determining the amount of additional emission reductions feasible from RECLAIM.



### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS Compliance with the provisions of this c ontrol measure would be based on monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that have been established in either the RECLAIM program or existing source specific rules and re gulations. In addition, compliance would be verified through inspections and other recordkeeping and reporting requirements.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost effectiveness of this control measur e has been determined to be $7,000 per ton of NO x reduced. The District will continue to analy ze the potential cost impact associated with implementing this control measure and will provi de detailed cost effectiveness information during rule development.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to regulate emissions from stationary sources.



### REFERENCES South Coast Air Quality Management District , Board Letter for Report on Potential Backstop Measures to Stabilize NO x RECLAIM Trading Credit Prices, January 19, 2001.
South Coast Air Quality Management District , Board Letter to Adopt Proposed Changes to RECLAIM, May 11, 2001.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Board Letter for Potential Backstop Rule for Regulation XX – Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM), November 9, 2001.

## GROUP 4 Fugitive Dust SourcesFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003BCM-07

IV-37 

### FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES [PM10]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : F UGITIVE D UST S OURCES

C ONTROL M ETHODS : W ATERING , C HEMICAL S TABILIZATION , P AVING , R EVEGETATION , T RACK -O UT C ONTROL , C ONSTRUCTION P ROJECT S IGNAGE

E MISSIONS ( TONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED

C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED

I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background Common sources of fugitive dust include vehi cular travel on paved and unpaved roads, construction/demolition and earth-movement activitie s, disturbed vacant lands, storage piles, and agricultural activities. The two basic physi cal processes that contribute to fugitive dust generation include: pulverization and abrasion of soils through mechanical force (e.g., wheels, blades, etc.), and entrainment of disturbed so ils through turbulent air currents (e.g., high winds and vehicular wake effects). Fugitive dust and corresponding PM10 emissions can vary significantly depending on soil type/moisture c ontent, the level/type of activity, and wind conditions (U.S. EPA, 1995).


### Regulatory History Based on CAA requirements and available guida nce (U.S. EPA, 1992), the District adopted Best Available Control Measure (BACM) require ments for fugitive dust sources in 1997. These requirements are contained in District Ru les 403 (Fugitive Dust) and 1186 (PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations). District Rule 403 is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, ha ndling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. U nder Rule 403, fugitive dust sources are required to implement BACM for all sources and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. Dist rict Rule 1186 contains requirements for clean-up of material deposited on to paved roads, use of certified str eet sweeping equipment, and treatment of highuse unpaved roads.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL The District’s BACM fugitive dust regulations ar e at least as stringent as control measures included in any other PM10 non-attainment plan or achieved in practice at the time of adoptionFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003BCM-07

IV-38 in 1997. Subsequently, other PM10 non-attainment areas have developed and adopted fugitive dust regulations based on special federal require ments (e.g., Most Stringent Measures or MSM) or in response to lawsuits. Elements of thes e new regulations contain requirements that may improve the effectiveness of the District’s fug itive dust control program. A review of existing District BACM regulations is proposed to cons ider enhancements that would further reduce PM10 emissions from fugitive dust sources. Ba sed on a preliminary review of other air district’s recently adopted rules, potential District rule enhancements may include:

• Improved compliance test methods,

• Specific short- and long-term soil stabilization requirements,

• Work practices for specific activities,

• Construction project signage, and

• Mandatory use of track-out control devices (i.e., site ingress/egress improvements).

Additionally, the BACM review w ill consider regulations for specific geographic areas based on soil type, wind conditions, and source extent. As this control measure may address fugitive dust sources in localized areas, it is also intended as a means to ensure compliance in those areas that are subject to high levels of PM10.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION All of the control options discussed are existing technologies that are presently available. For more traditional air pollution sources, such as poi nt sources, emissions reductions are calculated by multiplying the baseline emissions by the eff ectiveness of a given control technology (e.g., selective catalytic reduction). For non-traditiona l air pollution sources, such as fugitive dust, emissions reductions calculations are more difficu lt because the level of control necessary to comply will vary greatly due to site-specific c onditions. For example, a construction site in a coastal zone with high soil moisture content may have a lower potential to generate fugitive dust emissions compared to a site located in the mo re arid, inland portions of the Basin. Moreover, many of the proposed rule requirements allow va rious control options. Accordingly, it is not possible to quantify precise emissions reductions fr om implementation of this control measure. Requiring the most stringent control option c ould, however, result in a reduction in source emissions, depending on existing District Rule cont rol options. Until rule development clarifies the effectiveness of the most stringent control options beyond existing AQMD rule requirements, emission reduction credit are not taken for CM# BCM-07.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Compliance with this control measure could be achieved through periodic site visits, response to public complaints, and agency reports.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003BCM-07

IV-39 

### TEST METHODS

Methods to measure PM10 emissions will follow U. S. EPA or approved Di strict guidelines or test methods. Alternate guidelines may be use d, provided the measures are first approved by the U.S. EPA and the District.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost effectiveness of this control measur e has not been determined. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact s associated with implementing this control measure and will provide cost effectiveness information, as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The AQMD has the authority to adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards unde r Health and Safety Code Section 40460 and 40440(a).



### REFERENCES U.S. EPA, Compilation of Emission Factors (A P-42), Chapter 13 - Miscellaneous Sources, January 1995.
U.S. EPA, Fugitive Dust Background Document a nd Technical Information Document for Best Available Control Measures, September 1992 (EPA-450/2-92-004).Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003BCM-08

IV-40



### FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM AGGREGATE AND CEMENT MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS [PM10]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : A GGREGATE O PERATIONS C ONTROL M ETHODS : A REA S OURCE P RESCRIPTIVE M EASURES FOR A GGREGATE O PERATIONS E MISSIONS ( TONS /D AY ):

A

NNUAL A VERAGE 1997 2006 2010
PM10 I NVENTORY 1.4 1.6 1.7 PM10 R EDUCTION 0.6 0.7 PM10 R EMAINING 1.0 1.0
C ONTROL C OST : $730 PER TON PM10 R EDUCED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background Based on year 2000 SCAQMD Annual Emission Repor ting data, there are 75 facilities in the District involved in aggregate operations. Aggregate plants produce sand and gravel and crushed stone. Sand and gravel consists of unc onsolidated mixture of fine and/or course aggregate material found in natural deposits. Crushed stone can be comprised of limestone, granite, traprock, or any other hard rock pr oduced by blasting and crushing. The aggregate industry is heavily dependent on the construction industry for sales. Major customers include hot mix asphalt concrete plants, ready-mixed conc rete and block plants, and heavy construction and paving contractors. Approximately ha lf of the demand is generated by building construction such as housing, commercial building and manufacturing plants with the remainder used at public works projects such as highways, bridges, airports, and water-related projects (CARB, 1993).
Particulate matter may be generated from a variet y of locations in the form of fugitive dust. Typical release points from aggregate facilities include:

• Overburden and sand and gravel removal

• Wind-blown dust from storage piles and disturbed surfaces

• Unpaved haul road traffic

• Open conveyors exposed to the wind

• Transfer points in conveyor systemsFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003BCM-08

IV-41 • Material dumping from trucks, front-end loaders, and conveyors

• Track-out of material from ha ul roads onto paved roads within the facility and paved public roads serving the facility
In addition, cement manufacturing plants are fac ilities which quarry, crush, transport, blend, and grind the materials used to manufacture cement. Typically, the raw materials consist of limestone, silica, iron, and alumina. The proce ssing of the raw materials involves a cement kiln where the blended raw materials are heated at high temperatures (i.e., 2700 degrees Fahrenheit) to produce cooked pieces of calcium silicates known as clinker. The clinker is then ground with gypsum into a fine, powdered cement. Particulat e emissions occur from points where materials are handled or transferred from one place to another in the cement kiln process. In addition, fugitive dust occurs from quarrying, crushing, and grinding operations, as well as from similar sources found at aggregate operations (e.g., wind- blown dust from storage piles and disturbed surfaces and unpaved haul road traffic).


### Regulatory History At present, the District does not have a source- specific rule directed at aggregate operations. The emissions from these operations are curre ntly regulated under District Rules 404 and 405 (for permitted equipment) and Rules 401, 402, and 403 (for fugitive sources).
Rules 404 and 405 regulate particulate emissions fr om control exhausts based on concentration (volume discharged) and weight criteria, respec tively. Rule 401 controls visible emissions of any air contaminant discharged into the atmosphere from any single source. Rule 402 limits the discharge from any source causing a public nuisance. Rule 403 is a prohibitory rule directed toward any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. Under Rule 403, all form s of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing the property line.

Rule 1112.1 – Emissions of Particulate Matter from Cement Kilns specifies emission limits for particulate matter from the operation of cemen t kilns. The current emission limits for particulate matter are 0.4 pounds per ton of kiln f eed for feed rates less than 75 tons per hour and 30 pounds per ton of kiln feed for feed rate s greater than or equal to 75 tons per hour. Emissions from cement kilns and clinker coolers are exempt from the requirements of Rules 404 and 405. Fugitive emissions from any material ha ndling, transportation, or storage operations at cement manufacturing plants are subject to Rule 403.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL Although visible PM emissions from these sour ces are potentially addressed through existing general District regulations (e.g., Rule 403), th ere is not a source-specific rule to reduce emissions from non-permitted (area) sources associated with aggregate operations and cement plants. Existing applicable district regulations are prohibitory in nature (i.e., visible emissions crossing any property line). While Rule 403 can be used to control sources resulting in visible emissions, an additional regulation is necessa ry to address fugitive dust sources where emissions are constant but not subject to this regulation. Additional controls may also beFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003BCM-08

IV-42 necessary for sources at aggregate and cement manufacturing plant operations subject to Rules 404, 405, and 1112.1. The proposed control measure would establish prescriptive measures to control fugitive dust from area sources within a ggregate facilities and cement plants as well as evaluate whether additional controls are necessary for the control of PM10 for sources at aggregate and cement manufacturing plant operations subject to Rules 404, 405, and 1112.1. Examples of fugitive dust control requirements include:

• Pre-application of water prior to material extraction

• Application of chemical dust suppressants or establishment of a vegetative ground cover to inactive disturbed areas

• Chemical treatment or paving of internal haul roads

• Covering of material conveyors and haul vehicles

• Use of enclosures or hooding material at transfer points and screen operations

• Installation of wheel washing system(s) where haul vehicles exit the site
The proposed control method for particulate matter from cement kilns would occur in two steps. Under Step I, the District would further refi ne the emission inventory and current level of control from cement kilns. Step II would cons ist of an evaluation and implementation of the possible controls to further reduce the emissions from cement kilns from their present levels. Types of control methods to further reduce the particulate emissions from cement kilns may include electrostatic precipitators, high e fficient baghouses, and improved maintenance practices. Implementation of this control measure may be conducted in multi-rulemaking phases. Also, since preliminary modeling analysis indicates that PM10 reductions in local areas registering high PM10 concentrations significantly facilitate PM10 attainment in these areas, localized controls would also be considered.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION The estimated emission inventory and emission reductions for PM10 emissions from aggregate operations and cement manufacturing plants are summarized in the Control Measure Summary Table. The estimated emission inventory from these operations will be evaluated during Step I of the proposed control measure to further refine and update their emissions inventory (i.e., based on more accurate emission factors and activity data). The estimated emission reductions from aggregate operations and cement manufacturing plants will be dependent on the control strategies selected. Based on the current inform ation, a reduction target of 0.7 tons per day of PM10 will result in remaining PM10 emissions from these sources to be 1.0 tons per day by 2010. However, this emission target will be further evaluated for feasibility and refined during the rule making process.



### RULE COMPLIANCEFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003BCM-08

IV-43 Compliance with this control measure could be achieved through periodic site visits and in response to public complaints.



### TEST METHODS

Methods to measure PM10 emissions shall follow U.S. EPA or approved District guidelines or test methods. Alternate guidelines may be use d, provided the measures are first approved by the U.S. EPA and the District.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost-effectiveness of this control measure has been determined to be $730 per ton of PM10 reduced and is based on track-out control methods. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impacts associated with implemen ting this control measure and will provide more detailed cost effectiveness information as it b ecomes available. Based on previous estimates, the cost-effectiveness of several other potential control options are as follows:

• Unpaved road treatments - $958 per ton PM10 reduced (SCAQMD, 1997)

• Stabilization of inactive disturbed lands - $810 per ton PM10 reduced (SCAQMD, 1990)

• Revegetation of inactive disturbed lands - $532 per ton PM10 reduced (SCAQMD, 1990)

• Material transport controls (e.g., truck covers , freeboard requirements, material damping, clean up of spills) $2,500 per ton PM10 reduced (MAG, 2000)



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to regulate em issions from aggregate operations and cement manufacturing plants.



### REFERENCES California Air Resources Board (CARB), Comp liance Division, Aggregate Plants, Compliance Assistance Program , 1993.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), Co mpliance Division, Cement Kiln, Compliance Assistance Program , 1996.
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) , Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area Particulate Plan for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area , February 2000.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Revised Final Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) a nd Proposed Rule 1186 (PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, Livestock Operations) , February 1997.
South Coast Air Quality Management Dist rict, Final 2002 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan , 2002.

## GROUP 5 Miscellaneous SourcesFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-01

IV-45



### PROMOTION OF LIGHTER COLOR ROOFING AND ROAD MATERIALS PROGRAMS [ALL POLLUTANTS]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : R OOFING , P AVING , AND B UILDING M ATERIALS AND T REE P LANTING P ROJECTS
C ONTROL M ETHODS : U SE OF M ORE R EFLECTIVE AND L IGHTER C OLOR S URFACES
ON E XTERIOR S URFACES L OCATED IN U RBAN A REAS
E MISSIONS : I MPLEMENTATION OF T HIS C ONTROL M EASURE IS E XPECTED TO L OWER A MBIENT T EMPERATURES IN U RBAN A REAS

. L OWER A MBIENT T EMPERATURES W OULD D ECREASE THE F ORMATION OF O ZONE , W HICH I N T URN IS E XPECTED TO R ESULT IN I MPROVED A IR Q UALITY

. C ONTROL C OST : NOT D ETERMINED

. I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD, CEC, L OCAL G OVERNMENT 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The purpose of this control measure is to encourage activities that would lower ambient temperatures in urban areas. This control m easure focuses on encouraging activities such as using lighter, more reflective surface materials and increased tree planting.


### Background Over the past four decades, summer temperatures in urban cities throughout the nation have increased by 2 to 4°F. Since 1940, it is estimated that peak temperatures in Los Angeles have increased approximately 5 to 6°F (Akbari, et al , 1990; EPA, 1990). The increased temperatures are primarily occurring in urban areas. Moreover, studies have shown that summer temperatures in urban areas are typically 2°F to 8°F higher than in their rural surroundings. (EPA, 1992).
The difference between urban and rural temperatur es is referred to as the “urban heat island effect.” The replacement of natural vegetation su ch as trees, grass, and soil with concrete and asphalt reduces the landscape’s ability to lower day time temperatures and loses the benefits of shade. In addition, the use of da rk colored materials and surfaces that absorb, rather than reflect incoming solar energy adds to the effect, thus increasing temperatures in cities and urban areas.

The urban heat island effect has adverse im pacts on air quality and energy demands. The increased solar gain absorbed by the city can increase energy demands for cooling and accelerate ozone formation. Studies indicate th at in large metropolitan cities such as Los Angeles, utility peak loads will increase 1.5 to 2 pe rcent for every 1°F increase in temperature. In Los Angeles, energy loads for both Los Ange les Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and Southern California Edison (SCE) increase by about 2 percent per °F with respect to the base load (Taha, et al, 1992).Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-01

IV-46 The ability of a surface to reflect is referred to as albedo and is measured from zero to one, with one representing the most reflective and zero repr esenting the most absorbent. Most buildings and cities have albedos between .20 and .35 (Akbari, et al, 1990). To reduce urban temperatures, albedos can be increased by using lighter, more reflective materials on surfaces of roofs and pavement (roads and parking lots). In addition to providing shade to buildings and surfaces, trees cool the air directly by evapotra nspiration and block solar radiation and prevent these structures and surfaces from heating up beyond the ambient temperature (LADWP, 1992). Moreover through evapotranspiration, the natural releasing of water vapor from leaves and trees cools the environment, thus bringing down the temperature of the entire area.
A preliminary air quality modeling analysis i ndicates cooler surfaces and tree planting can improve the ozone air quality in Los Angeles. Initial results indicate that through cooler surfaces for homes, office-building roofs, and paved surfaces, and planting 11 million trees in Los Angeles, that the heat island effect can be reduced between 3 - 7°F (Rosenfeld, et al, 1996).
In May 2002, the District co-funded a project with the City of L.A., L.A. Department of Water and Power, Lawerence Berkeley Laboratories and the California Energy Commission to assess the effects of using lighter colored roofing mate rials to improve energy efficiency and to lessen the urban heat island effect. A field study wa s conducted to measure the changes in surface temperatures in light colored roofing and paving materials installed in and around the L.A. Zoo. Results of the project are still pending.
A study was conducted in 1998 to quantify the ai r quality benefits of the cool community concept by applying an appropriate air quality modeling approach (ENVIRON, 1998). Cool communities impacts on temperature and disper sion were mapped using the Urban Airshed Model (UAM) to evaluate the meteorological e ffects on ozone formation and transport within the Basin. Maximum ozone reductions were f ound to be about 8 part s per billion (ppb). A follow-up study was conducted to explore ways in which the air quality benefits that accrue from the implementation of urban heat island mitigation strategies can be converted into quantifiable emission reductions (ENVIRON, 2001). This study analyzed three options for regulatory approaches in generating emi ssion reductions including: local governments modifying building codes to require the use of li ght colored materials, public or private groups providing cash or other incentives to building owners to install lighter colored materials, and the District requiring the use of lighter colored materials with the resulting emission reductions applied for SIP purposes.


### Regulatory History In January 1992, the EPA introduced a publication, Cooling Our Communities: A Guidebook on Tree Planting and Light-Colored Surfacing. Th is guidebook discussed the causes, magnitude and impacts of increased urban heat islands.

There are communities within the Basin which have tree planting programs and ordinances already in effect. In addition, some utilities pr ovide educational guidance brochures regarding tree planting.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROLFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-01

IV-47 This control measure proposes to develop a program to promote the use of light colored roofing and pavement materials, solar roofing membra nes, and increased tree planting. Programs to promote use of more reflective pavement and tr ee planting could be a required element for new sources, or could be included as recomme ndations through the District’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook. Sources such as builders, utilities, cities and local government agencies, and private citizens, etc. that promote the use of lighter colored materials and increased tree planting could be eligible for an emission credit. Emission credits could be issued based on types of surface materials used or numbers of trees per unit or area that meet or exceed a specified benchmark.
There are a variety of techniques that can be implemented to reduce urban temperatures and increase the albedo of roofs, pavements, and build ing surfaces. Most of these techniques can be implemented during the maintenance or modifi cation of existing structures or during the building stages of new structures.
Roofing Materials The reflectivity of roofs is measured in term s of roof temperature at noon on a clear summer day, with an air temperature of 90 o F, averaged over the warranted lif e of the roof. A gray roof with a smooth or washable texture would have a roof temperature under the aforementioned conditions of approximately 160 o F. A light green roof has a higher albedo, and accordingly a lower surface temperature of 135 o F.
One method of achieving higher albedos is to co at existing surfaces or modify the makeup of new surfaces so that they incorporate lighter co lored materials. Available techniques for roof whitening include, but are not limited to the following (Taha, et al, 1992):

• adding light-colored aggregate to the roofing material;

• light-colored rocks on flat or gently-sloped roofs;

• colored or painted roofs;

• coating with elastomeric coatings and single plies; and

• using light-colored concrete tiles on sloping roofs.
In addition to these techniques, the use of integrated roofing membranes using solar photovoltaic arrays can have a combined effect of lowering the thermal impacts on commercial and industrial building roofs while at the same time supplying the electricity needs of these buildings. Such products consist of an array of photovoltaic modules integrated into a flexible polyester-based roofing membrane. These roofing membranes have relatively high albedos (e.g., 0.8) and can be equipped with insulation th ereby, reducing the thermal impacts on roofs. The photovoltaic modules convert much of the in coming sun’s energy directly into electricity, substantially reducing the energy absorbed by a roof.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-01

IV-48 Pavement and Building Surface Materials Within the city, there are a number of urban surf aces such as streets, sidewalks, parking lots, school yards, and other similar surfaces, that have dark surfaces. The following identifies techniques that can be implemented to lighten urban surfaces (Taha, et al, 1992, Pomerantz, 1996):

• using light-colored aggregates in the upper layer of the asphalt in new pavements;

• using a light-colored slurry or chip seal when resurfacing;

• using concrete rather than asphalt, with a light-colored aggregate and binder;

• whitetopping (light-colored concrete pavements);

• using artificial lighteners in preparing the mixtures of asphaltic concrete and slurry seals; and

• using paints of light colors that are designe d specifically to resist weathering, wear and tear, and other environmental effects.
In addition to selecting materials with high albedos , other considerations are important to ensure that materials maintain their original albedos. Considerations that should be taken into account include, but are not limited to material wear resi stance, effects of soiling, and surface texture. In addition, in selecting materials for roads, park ing lots, and driveways, it is important that the light-colored surface has a non-skid finish.
Tree Planting To help lower an entire city’s temperatures th rough evapotranspiration, street trees need to be planted in public as well as private spaces such as parking lots, plazas, street meridians, sidewalks, residential yards, corporate lawn s, parks, and shopping plazas (EPA, 1992). For homes and buildings, the most dramatic cooling takes place when trees directly shade windows, walls, roofs, and air-conditioning units (LADWP, 1992). For residences, most experts suggest planting three or more trees, placing them so they will shade the home and outdoor living areas during the summer months (SCE, 1991). The air conditioning savings are even greater when the tree shades an office building with large windows and long air conditioning hours.
A general rule of thumb is to plan t at least five to ten feet from a structure; moreover, the shape and projected mature spread of the tree should be taken into account in this distance (LADWP, 1991). To maximize the evaportranspiration of tr ee planting programs, the placement of trees in cities is important. The following identifies tree pl anting strategies that should be considered to maximize the cooling benefits associated with increased tree planting:

• shade east- and west facing walls and windows of home or building to reduce air conditioning energy consumption,Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-01

IV-49 • shade roofs to lower the temperature of interiors of homes and buildings, external surfaces, and surrounding environment,

• shade outdoor air conditioning units to increase its efficiency,

• shade nearby walls and flat surfaces such as walkways, driveways, alleys, and the streets, and

• plant trees to influence wind movement and circulation around and through residences and buildings.
In selecting shade trees for large-scale planti ng, they must be low biogenic emitters (Benjamin & Winer, 1994). Consideration should also be taken for their tolerance to air pollution, water requirements, effect (or lack of effect) on sidewalks, sewer lines and overhead electric lines, and insect and pest resistance (Corchnoy, et al, 1991). The shape, size, species, as well as fire hazards are important to consider in selecting sh ade trees. In selecting species, it is important that trees with the potential to produce bi ogenic hydrocarbon emissions be avoided. The District would work with interested parties to develop a list of species of trees that would be recommended for shading.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Implementation of this control measure is exp ected to decrease ambient temperatures in the Basin, particularly during summer months. Improve d air quality is expected as a result of lower urban temperatures.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Implementation of this measure could be based on the following:

• local government model ordinances;

• legislative strategies for incentives; and

• public outreach for consumer awareness.
In addition, the District may consider the development of an emissions credit mechanism to provide emission credits based on the number of un its modified or installed that use materials and colors meeting or exceeding a specified benchmark.



### TEST METHODS ASTM Sub-Committee E06-21 has developed E1980- 01 Standard Practice for Calculating Solar Reflectance Index of Horizontal and Low-Sloped Opague Surfaces to determine indexes and surface temperatures for surfaces with emissivity greater than 0.1.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-01

IV-50 

### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost effectiveness of this control measure ha s not yet been fully determined. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost imp act associated with implementing this control measure and will provide cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY Implementation of this measure is expected to re quire the partnership of the District, CEC, and local government.



### REFERENCES

Rosenfeld et. al. “Policies to Reduce Heat Isla nds: Magnitudes of Benefits and Incentives to Achieve Them,” EE-1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. MS 90-2000, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California. 1996.

Pomerantz, M., H. Akbari, A. Chen, H. Taha, A.H. Rosenfeld. “Paving Materials for Heat Island Mitigation,” LBL 38074, Berkeley, CA. 1996.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. C ooling Our Communities. A Guidebook on Tree Planting and Light-Colored Surfacing. January, 1992.

Akbari, H., Rosenfeld, A.H., Taha, H. “Su mmer Heat Islands, Urban Trees, and White Surfaces.” January, 1990.
Taha, H., R. Ritschard, and B. Huang. “Urban Climates, Global Change, and Energy Use: A Preliminary Investigation of the Potential for Offset with High Albedo and Increased Vegetation Cover, “ DRAFT, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, December 1992.
Taha, H., D. Sailor, and H. Akbari. “High- Albedo Materials for Reducing Building Cooling Energy Use.” Heat Island Project Energy a nd Environment Division Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. January 1992.
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. “Smart Planting for the New Urban Forest. A Guide to Planting Trees Around Your Home.” 1992.
Southern California Edison. “Trees Saving Energy Naturally.” 1991.
Corchnoy, B. Stephanie, Janet Arey, Roger At kinson. “Hydrocarbon Emissions from Twelve Urban Shade Trees of the Los Angeles, California, Air Basin.” November 1991.
ENVIRON. 1998. “Air Quality Modeling Evaluati on of the Cool Communities Ozone Control Strategy.” ENVIRON International Corporation. March 1998.
ENVIRON. 2001. “Final Report: Development of an Ozone Precursor Emission Reduction Credit Program Based on Urban Heat Island M itigation Measures.” Prepared by ENVIRON International Corporation for the City of Los Angeles. May 2001.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-03

IV-51 

### PROMOTION OF CATALYST-SURFACE COATING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS [O 3 

### , CO]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : R ESIDENTIAL AND S TATIONARY A IR C ONDITIONING U NITS
C ONTROL M ETHODS : I NCORPORATE C ATALYST -S URFACE C OATING T ECHNOLOGIES IN A IR C ONDITIONING U NITS
E MISSIONS : I MPLEMENTATION OF T HIS C ONTROL M EASURE IS E XPECTED TO R ESULT IN THE C ONVERSION OF A MBIENT O ZONE AND C ARBON M ONOXIDE INTO O XYGEN AND C ARBON D IOXIDE , R ESPECTIVELY

. C ONTROL C OST : NOT D ETERMINED

. I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD, L OCAL G OVERNMENT 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The purpose of this control measure is to encour age the incorporation of catalyst-surface coating technologies in residential and commercial ai r conditioning units, in order to promote the conversion of ground-level ozone and carbon m onoxide into oxygen and carbon dioxide. To maximize air quality benefits, this control meas ure would be primarily implemented in those areas within the South Coast Air Basin that experience the highest ambient ozone levels.


### Background Catalysts can be coated on surfaces that come into contact with large volumes of ambient air, to promote the chemical conversion of ozone a nd carbon monoxide (CO) into harmless gases. Applicable surfaces with regard to stationary source applications include residential and commercial air conditioning units, utilizing the existing condenser surface area or perhaps adding a catalyzed filter across the exhaust air str eam. These coatings could also be potentially applied to heating and ventilation equipment as well.
To date, the preponderance of work evaluating the effectiveness of catalyst-surface coating technology has been performed by Engelhard Cor poration. Their work has focused on the use of this technology on motor vehicle radiator su rfaces, due to the large amount of ambient air flow across this surface type, but they also cons ider their technology applicable to air handling equipment used in residential and commercial applications (Engelhard, 2002).
In cooperation with Engelhard Corporation, the District conducted a study in 1997 to determine the effectiveness of catalytic coating applied to residential air conditioner condensers for the removal of atmospheric ozone. Sampling was c onducted on some test sites and showed that there was a distinct reduction in ozone from the use of air conditioner condensers treated with the catalyst. However, the findings did not conc lude what effect, if any, the catalysts would have on lowering ambient ozone concentrations (SCAQMD, 1998)Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-03

IV-52 

### Regulatory History There is currently no regulatory history with regard to the use of catalyst-surface coating technology for the direct reduction of ground leve l ozone and CO emissions. To date, the regulatory and analytical framework for addressi ng ozone reductions has historically been based on directly reducing emissions of VOC and NO x (ozone precursors).



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL This control measure proposes to develop a progr am to promote the use of catalyst-surface coating technologies in residential and commerc ial air conditioning units. The program would specifically focus on those areas in the South Co ast Air Basin that exhibit the highest ozone levels in order to maximize the emission reduction potential of this control strategy. The use of catalyst-surface coating technology could be a re quired element for new sources, or could be included as a recommendation through the SCAQM D’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook. The issuance of em ission reduction credits could also be used to promote the implementation of this technology.
Prior to implementing programs that promote the use of catalyst-surface coating technology, analyses would have to be performed to be tter understand the design parameters, air quality benefits, and cost impacts associated with utiliz ing this technology in stationary air conditioning applications. This work would serve to augment evaluations already completed for motor vehicle applications.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Implementation of this control measure is expected to decrease ambient ozone and carbon monoxide emission levels in the Basin, particularly during summer months.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Implementation of this measure could be based on the following:

• local government model ordinances;

• legislative strategies for incentives; and

• public outreach for consumer awareness.
In addition, the SCAQMD may consider the devel opment of an emissions credit mechanism to provide emission credits based on the number of air conditioning units that are modified or installed that use catalyst-surface coating technology.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been fully determined.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCYFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-03

IV-53 Implementation of this measure is expected to require the partnership of the SCAQMD and local government agencies.



### REFERENCES Johnson, David, E3 Ventures. Written communica tions with Mike Nazemi. November to December, 1995.
Johnson, David, E3 Ventures. Written communications with Dr. Alan Lloyd. June, 1995.

Sierra Research. “An Evaluation of On-Roa d Ozone Destruction Using a Catalyst-Coated Automobile Radiator.” Report No. SR95-03-06, pr epared for Engelhard Corporation, March 30, 1995.
Engelhard. “PremAir Catalyst Overview – Usi ng Air Handling Equipment to Destroy Ozone.” Engelhard.com. (2002)
SCAQMD. “Report on Ozone Sampling for Eff ectiveness of the Engelhard Catalyst on Residential Air Conditioning Condensers.” January, 1998.
SCAQMD. “Estimation of the Effects of an Ozone Control Strategy Focusing on Air Conditioning-Bound Catalysts for Ozone Scr ubbing, Prepared by Systems Applications International, Inc. for the South Coast Air Quality Management District.” February, 1998.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-04

IV-54 

### EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM MISCELLANEOUS AMMONIA SOURCES [NH 3 

### ]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : M ISCELLANEOUS A MMONIA S OURCES C ONTROL M ETHODS : A LL A VAILABLE C ONTROL M ETHODS E MISSIONS ( TONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED C ONTROL C OST : N OT DETERMINED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background In 1998, the District initiated a revision to th e 1995 PM10 Technical Enhancement Program in order to enhance efforts in the areas of monitoring, emissions inventory, and air quality modeling. Based on the 2000 revision to the T echnical Enhancement Program (TEP) and the update to the ammonia inventory, there are sour ces of ammonia that, when combined with gaseous nitric and sulfuric acid resulting from upwind NO x and SO x emissions, could result in increases in particulate aerosol ammonium nitrate and sulfate in peak PM2.5 and PM10 areas.
To expeditiously attain the PM10 standard and make progress toward the PM2.5 standard, further reductions of ammonia emissions are necessary. This control measure identifies additional sources and potential control methods that may warrant additional development. The purpose of this measure is to develop a comp rehensive ammonia control plan through more refined source characterization and control assessment.

The 1997 Gridded Ammonia Emission Invent ory Update (SCAQMD, 2000) quantifies emissions from all ammonia sources in the Basi n. The emissions inventory study estimated that these sources contribute between 154 to 180 tons per day of ammonia emissions. The ammonia emissions from on-road mobile sources were estim ated at 33 tons per day or 18% of the overall ammonia inventory, while these emissions were estim ated to be 7 tons per day or roughly 5% of the overall ammonia inventory in the 1997 AQMP. The basis for the 1997 Gridded Ammonia Emission Inventory Update was tunnel studies for on-road motor vehicles which resulted in higher emission factors (three and a half times la rger) than the average used to estimate the emissions in the 1997 AQMP (SCAQMD, 2000).
The majority of ammonia sources identified are non-traditional sources such as soil surfaces (39 tons per day) and domestic sources (23 tons per day) such as dogs, cats, cigarette smoke, human perspiration and waste, and household ammonia pr oducts. Other sources of ammonia emissions include landfills, sewage treatment plants, and small industrial plants. Locally concentrated sources already identified in other control meas ures or currently undergoing rule development include livestock operations (59 tons per day) and composting operations (5 tons per day). Currently dairy emissions, representing between 19 and 25 tons of ammonia per day are being addressed in Proposed Rule 1127-Emission Reduc tions From Livestock Waste. CompostingFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-04

IV-55 operations are being addressed in ProposedRule 1133.2 – Emission Reductions From CoComposting Operations.


### Regulatory History Proposed Rule 1133.2 (partially implementing Control Measure CM #99 WST-02) includes specific control requirements to reduce amm onia and VOC emissions from co-composting operations. Proposed Rule 1127 (implementing Control Measure CM #99 WST-01) proposes to achieve ammonia and VOC emission reductions from livestock waste, specifically dairy

manure.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL Based on a preliminary review of the TEP 2000 and the 1997 Gridded Ammonia Emission Inventory Update, potential inventory assessments and control strategies for ammonia sources may include, but are not limited to:

• Better quantification of mobile source ammonia emissions

• Identification of control device maintenance pr ocedures, warnings, and/or devices to reduce mobile source ammonia emissions

• Extend Proposed Rule 1127 to poultry and other livestock operations

• Expand Proposed Rule 1133 series to other composting operations

• Investigate fertilizer formulation and applicati on procedures that may reduce nitrogen loss to air (e.g., ammonia emissions)

• Review refrigeration and metal treating technol ogies to access potential control options, if necessary The evaluation of control strategies will be c onducted in conjunction with modeling to ensure the effectiveness of the proposed control methods.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Projected emission reductions are uncertain at this time, and require further analysis.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Compliance with this control measure would depend on the type of controls implemented.



### TEST METHODS Source testing methods will be determined on a case-by-case basis for various sources. Laboratory methods to be used incl ude EPA Method 17/350.2 for free ammonia.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-04

IV-56 

### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost-effectiveness of this control measure has not been determined. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact s associated with implementing this control

measure.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to regulate a mmonia emissions from stationary sources. Depending on the sources identified for additional control, the District will work with other agencies such as county sanitation districts a nd other state (e.g., CARB) and local agencies to implement this control measure.



### REFERENCES South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Technical Enhancement Program For the 2000 AQMP Revision (TEP 2000) Work plan , February 1998.
South Coast Air Quality Management Dist rict (SCAQMD), Final 1997 Gridded Ammonia Emission Inventory Update For the South Coast Air Basin, August, 2000.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-05

IV-57 

### TRUCK STOP ELECTRIFICATION [ALL POLLUTANTS]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : T RUCK S TOPS C ONTROL M ETHODS : E LIMINATION OF T RUCK IDLING AT T RUCK S TOPS BY P ROVIDING H EATING , V ENTILATION , AND A IR C ONDITIONING TO T RUCK C ABS AND BY S UPPLYING E LECTRIC P OWER TO R

UN O N -B OARD T RUCK S YSTEMS AND BY S UPPLYING E LECTRIC P OWER TO R UN T RAILER R EFRIGERATION U NITS E MISSIONS ( TONS /D AY )*:

A

NNUAL A VERAGE 1997 2006 2010
NO X I NVENTORY 1.7 2.3 2.5 NO X R EDUCTION 0.0 2.1 NO X R EMAINING 2.3 0.4
C ONTROL C OST : $5,000 PER T ON OF NO X R EDUCED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD * Concurrent emission reductions of PM10, VOC, and CO; Em issions from trailer refrigeration units are not included in

this summary. 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background Truck stops are facilities that provide overnight parking spaces for heavy-duty trucks such as inter-city or line haul tractor-trailers or eighteen wheelers. In addition to parking, truck stops provide a myriad of services for truck operators such as truck fueling, maintenance and repairs, food, banking, laundry, and private showers.
There are approximately 35 truck stop facilities in the jurisdiction of the District. A common practice for operators of heavy-duty diesel-fueled tr ucks is to idle their truck engines while at truck stops to provide cooling and heating to th e interior cab, keep the truck engine and fuel warm during cold temperatures, and to use in- cab appliances. To reduce or eliminate idling times and thereby emissions, truck stop electrification can be used.
Visits by trucks hauling refrigerated trailers also occur at truck stops. The exact number or proportion of trucks with refrigerated trailers visiting truck stops is unknown at this time and would require further analysis. Truck operato rs who haul refrigerated goods operate their refrigerated trailers while at truck stops. In most cases, the power to operate the refrigeration unit on these trailers is supplied by a small aux iliary diesel engine mounted on the trailers. Many of these refrigeration units are capable of running on an external supply of electric power. While operating on this external power supply, the small diesel engines are shut down.
Truck stop electrification is the practice of empl oying an external source of heating, ventilating, and air conditioning to heat or cool the interi or space of a truck cab and/or providing electricFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-05

IV-58 power to operate in-cab appliances, on-board el ectric systems, trailer refrigeration units, and heaters and air conditioners in lieu of idling the truck propulsion engine or auxiliary engine used to power the trailer refrigeration units. Truck stop electrification results in emission benefits because the emissions generated are no longer based on the idling emissions of a heavy-duty diesel truck or auxiliary engines, but from the emissions generated from the on-site (e.g., micro turbines) or off-site production of electricity, which are significantly lower.


### Regulatory History Truck idling at truck stops is currently not regul ated in the Basin. However, Rule 1634 – Pilot Credit Generation Program for Truck Stops whic h was adopted by the District’s Governing Board on October 19, 2001 provides opportunities for generation of NO x mobile source emission reduction credits (MSERCs) through a pilot credit generation program. Rule 1634 applies to any entity who supplies electric power at truck stops for use by truck operators to run appliances inside truck cabs, on-board truck systems, and trailer refrigeration units, and by providing heating, ventilating, and air conditioning to truck cabs at truck stops in order to eliminate the operation of diesel-fueled engines us ed by trucks. Credits can also be generated by supplying an external source of electric power to run trailer refrigeration units in lieu of operating the auxiliary diesel engines normally used to run these units. NO x MSERCs generated through this program may be used in RE CLAIM. The U.S. EPA is still in the process of reviewing Rule 1634 and its approvability is pending.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL This control measure will require the mandatory installation of electric systems at truck stops that can provide heating, ventilating, and air cond itioning to truck cabs, run appliances inside truck cabs, and on-board truck systems at truck st ops in order to eliminate truck idling thereby eliminating the operation of diesel-fueled engines used by trucks (i.e., during engine idling). In order to reduce or eliminate the operation of aux iliary engines that power refrigeration units on refrigerated trailers, this control measures will also require the installation of external power supplies at truck stops for use by truck operators to power their trailer refrigeration units.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION The estimated emissions inventory and emission reductions from truck idling are provided in the summary table. Although NO x emissions are provided, there would be concurrent emission reductions of PM10, CO, and VOC. Emissions for refrigerated trailer units at truck stops are unknown at this time and would require further analysis. In addition, the overall emission reductions are based on the assumption that th e emissions from in-basin electric power production to supply the electrical systems at truc k stops required by this control measure are no more than 2.0 percent of the total reduction poten tial. Since Rule 1634 allows credit generation from truck stop electrification up through 2006, it is intended that any reductions from truck stop electrification occurring prior to this timef rame would qualify for credits under Rule 1634. Emission reductions resulting from implementation of this control measure and occurring after 2006 would be credited towards the emission reduction goal.



### RULE COMPLIANCEFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-05

IV-59 Compliance with this control measure would be similar to the monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements of Rule 1634.



### TEST METHODS No test methods are necessary since the control method relies on power from the electric grid or other on-site electric production in lieu of idling a truck engine or auxiliary engine.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost-effectiveness of this control measure is based on the installation and operation of the IdleAire stationary truck HVAC technology at each long-term parking stall in the Basin and is estimated at $5,000 per ton of NO x reduced. The cost-effectiveness of this control measure is expected to go down if all pollutants are considered.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has authority to adopt regulations to reduce or mitigate emissions from indirect sources of air pollution, which would include this measure, pursuant to Health & Safety Code 40716.



### REFERENCES SCAQMD. Staff Report for Proposed Rule 1634 – Pilo t Credit Generation Program for Truck Stops . October, 2001.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-06

IV-60 

### EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM WOOD BURNING FIREPLACES AND WOOD STOVES [PM10]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : R ESIDENTIAL W OOD C OMBUSTION C ONTROL M ETHODS : L OW E MISSION S TANDARDS , I NCENTIVE P ROGRAMS , S MOKE M ANAGEMENT P LAN (V OLUNTARY C URTAILMENT ), AND P UBLIC O UTREACH E MISSIONS ( TONS /D AY ): A

NNUAL A VERAGE 1997 2006 2010 PM10 I NVENTORY 5.5 6.3 6.7 PM10 R EDUCTION TBD TBD PM10 R EMAINING TBD TBD

C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The purpose of this control measure is to seek emission reductions from wood burning fireplaces and wood stoves.


### Background The types of devices used to burn wood in a t ypical residence are fireplaces and wood heaters which include fireplace inserts and free-standi ng wood stoves. Since fireplaces are very inefficient heat sources, they are used primarily for aesthetic effects. Fireplace inserts and wood stoves are much more efficient and in some re sidences are used as the primary source of heating.
Equipment Description
(The following discussion of w ood burning devices is taken directly from U.S. EPA AP-42, Sections 1.9 and 1.10, October 1996.)
Fireplaces can be divided into two broad categorie s: (1) masonry (generally brick and/or stone, assembled on site, and integral to a structure) a nd (2) prefabricated (usually metal, installed on site as a package with appropriate duct work). Some prefabricated fireplaces can be inserted into existing masonry fireplace openings, and thus are called “inserts”.
Masonry fireplaces typically have large fixed ope nings to the fire bed and have dampers above the combustion area in the chimney to limit room air and heat losses when the fireplace is not being used. Some masonry fireplaces are desi gned or retrofitted with doors and louvers to reduce the intake of combustion air during use.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-06

IV-61 Prefabricated fireplaces are commonly equipped with louvers and glass doors to reduce the intake of combustion air, and some are surr ounded by ducts through which floor level air is drawn by natural convection, heated, and returned to the room. Many varieties of prefabricated fireplaces are now available on the market. One general class is the freestanding fireplace, the most common of which consists of an inverted sheet metal funnel and stovepipe directly above the fire bed. Another class is the "zero clear ance" fireplace, an iron or heavy-gauge steel firebox lined inside with firebrick and surrounded by multiple steel walls with spaces for air circulation. Some zero clearance fireplaces can be inserted into existing masonry fireplace openings, and thus are sometimes called "inserts". Some of these units are equipped with closefitting doors and have operating and combustion characteristics similar to wood stoves.

Wood stoves are enclosed wood heaters that c ontrol burning or burn time by restricting the amount of air that can be used for combustion. They are used both as the primary source of residential heat and to supplement conventional heating systems. Based on known variations in construction, combustion, and emission characteristic s, there are five different categories of residential wood burning devices: (1) the conve ntional wood stove; (2) the non-catalytic wood stove; (3) the catalytic wood stove; (4) the pellet stove; and (5) the masonry heater.
The conventional stove category comprises all st oves without catalytic combustors not included in the other noncatalytic categories (i. e., noncat alytic and pellet). Conventional stoves do not have any emission reduction technology or desi gn features and, in most cases, were manufactured before July 1, 1986. Stoves with vari ous airflow designs may be in this category, such as updraft, downdraft, crossdraft, and S-flow.
Noncatalytic wood stoves are those units that do not employ catalysts but that do have emission reducing technology or features. Typical noncat alytic design includes baffles and secondary combustion chambers.
Catalytic stoves are equipped with a ceramic or metal honeycomb device, called a combustor or converter, that is coated with a noble metal such as platinum or palladium. The catalyst material reduces the ignition temperature of the unburned VOC and CO in the exhaust gases, thus augmenting their ignition and combustion at normal stove operating temperatures. As these components of the gases burn, the temperatur e inside the catalyst increases to a point at which the ignition of the gases is essentially self-sustaining.
Pellet stoves are those fueled with pellets of sawdust, wood products, and other biomass materials pressed into manageable shapes and si zes. These stoves have active air flow systems and unique grate design to accommodate this type of fuel. Some pellet stove models are subject to the 1988 New Source Performance Standards, wh ile others are exempt due to a high air-tofuel ratio (i. e., greater than 35-to-1).
Masonry heaters are large, enclosed chambers made of masonry products or a combination of masonry products and ceramic materials. Thes e devices are exempt from the 1988 New Source Performance Standards due to their weight (i. e., greater than 1764 lb). Masonry heaters are gaining popularity as a cleaner-burning, heat-effici ent form of primary and supplemental heat, relative to some other types of wood heaters. In a masonry heater, a complete charge of wood is burned in a relatively short period of time. The use of masonry materials promotes heatFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-06

IV-62 transfer. Thus, radiant heat from the heater warms the surrounding area for many hours after the fire has burned out.

Emissions
Emissions from residential wood burning devi ces, caused mainly by incomplete combustion, include PM10, CO, NOx, SOx, and VOC. Add itionally, incomplete combustion of wood produces polycyclic organic matter, a group of co mpounds classified as hazardous air pollutants under Title III of the federal Clean Air Act.
A variety of variables can affect residentia l wood burning emissions. Stove type, burn rate, wood type, and temperature are among the variab les that affect the amounts of pollutants emitted from a fire. Therefore, there is no one emission factor representative of all the possible operating conditions. It is noted, however, that residential wood burning follows seasonal and regional patterns. Wood consumption is highest during the winter months and is higher on a per household basis in rural mountainous areas than in urban areas. The prevailing meteorological conditions (i.e. long-lasting temperature invers ions) in winter compound the adverse air quality effects associated with emissions from re sidential wood burning. During a temperature inversion, the air is likely to be stagnant. The stagnant air mass traps air pollutants which then accumulate near ground-level.
It is also noted that in regard to wood stove s, emissions may be relatively higher in warmer climates (such as southern California) than in colder climates since higher burn rates (i.e., hotter and more complete combustion conditions) char acteristic of colder climates produce lower emissions. Additionally, fires tend to be starte d and allowed to burn out more frequently in warmer climates hence the kindling phase porti on of the burn period contribute relatively more to the overall emissions in warmer climates than in colder ones. Furthermore, stoves purchased in the Western United States tend to have larger fireboxes than those purchased elsewhere such that if all else is equal, stoves in the We stern United States will have higher emissions (combustion temperatures are not as high in a larger firebox).
The emissions inventory from residential wood burni ng in the district is presented in the control measure summary. The emissions inventory wa s developed based on the estimated number of wood-burning households in the Basin and the amount of wood burned per household by county, temperature profiles, and U.S. EPA’s AP -42 emission factors. As with any control measure, AQMD staff, in cooperation with CARB and other stakeholders, will reevaluate the inventory as part of the rule development pr ocess and refine the inventory if appropriate.



### REGULATORY HISTORY Prior to the 2003 AQMP, the District had not targeted residential wood burning for rule development. The U.S. EPA and CARB regulations of this source are discussed below.
In 1988, the U.S. EPA promulgated New Source Performance Standards for new wood heaters (i.e., wood stoves and fireplace inserts) to reduce PM emissions. Since then, the U.S. EPA has regulated the manufacture and sale of new wood heaters in the U.S. with standards becoming effective in 1990. Phase I of the regulation required that after July 1, 1990, catalytic woodFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-06

IV-63 heaters must be certified to meet a 5.5 grams pe r hour particulate matter emission standard and non-catalytic wood heaters must meet a 8.5 grams per hour standard. Phase II requires that new wood heaters sold after July 1, 1992 must meet more stringent standards of 4.1 grams per hour for catalytic heaters and 7.5 grams per hour for non-catalytic heaters.
There are no federal certification requirements for fireplaces. They are exempt from U.S. EPA certification because their air-to-fuel ratios are in excess of the 35:1. Only the states of Washington (WAC 150-31-200) and Colorado (Regul ation 4) and the Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), San Louis Obispo County APCD, Shasta County Air Quality Management District and Great Basin Unified APCD (Regulation IV, Rule 504, Rule 3:23, and Rule 431, respectively) have fireplace st andards. The California APCDs referenced above require all new wood burning devices (incl uding fireplaces) installed in new or existing units to meet, at minimum, U.S. EPA Phase II em ission standards. In effect, these regulations limit new residential wood burning devices to w ood burning stoves, fireplace inserts, pelletfueled wood heaters, or dedicated gas-fired fireplaces.
In 1989, the CARB adopted a suggested control m easure (SCM) for emissions from residential wood heaters. CARB’s SCM for the Control of Emissions from Residential Wood Combustion includes a list of specific control strategies fo r new and existing residential wood heaters (i.e., fireplace inserts and wood stoves – not fireplaces ). CARB’s SCM includes the following:
Public awareness programs: Retailers of wood heaters will be required to have available to customers, public information that includes pamphlets or other information discussing the proper operation and maintenance of wood heaters and health effects of wood smoke.
Replacement of existing wood heaters: Upon the sale of real pr operty that contains a wood heater, the heater must be an EPA-certified, Oregon-certified, or pellet-fueled wood heater.
EPA Phase II requirements: This strategy will accelerate th e implementation date by a year and a half, new wood heaters meeting EPA's Phase II requirements by January 1, 1991.

Sale of Used wood heaters: After January 1, 1991, used wood heaters that are offered for sale must be EPA-certified, Oregon-certified, or be pellet-fueled.

Moisture content of seasoned wood: Firewood that is offered for sale as "seasoned wood" must have a moisture content of 20 percent by weight or less.
Prohibited fuel types: Garbage, treated wood, plastic, rubber, waste petroleum products, paints and paint solvents, and coal having a su lfur content exceeding more than one percent by weight are prohibited from being burned in a residential wood-burning appliance.
Voluntary curtailment program: This program involves the vol untary curtailment of the use of wood heaters and fireplaces during poor air quality conditions.
A number of possible strategies not included in the SCM were identified by CARB during the development of the SCM as additional strategies that some districts may wish to consider. These include:Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-06

IV-64 • Economic incentives for wood heater replacement,

• Opacity standards,

• Limits on the number of fireplaces in new single home or multiple dwellings,

• Removal of existing conventional wood heaters as a condition for the new residential development,

• Use of alternative fuels,

• Retrofit of existing wood heaters, and

• Mandatory curtailment program.
As discussed above, a number of California air pollu tion control districts have adopted rules that regulate emissions from residential wood combus tion. The requirements of these rules vary from voluntary programs to curtail burning on days with poor air quality to voluntary or mandatory installation of lower-emitting wood st oves to limiting or banning the installation of wood burning devices in new buildings. A sample of pertinent requirements from some of these air districts’ rules is presented below.

• All solid fuel appliances (including fire places) must meet EPA Phase II certification. (Great Basin APCD)

• No more than one solid fuel appliance may be installed in any new dwelling or nonresidential property. Existing properties with one or more existing solid fuel appliances may not install additional solid fuel appliances. (Great Basin APCD)

• Prior to the completion of the sale or tr ansfer of any real property, all existing noncertified solid fuel appliances must be replaced, removed, or rendered permanently inoperable. (Great Basin APCD)

• Wood fired appliances or fireplaces shall not be used in multiple unit residential developments approved after July 1, 1986 except in public areas. (Placer County APCD)

• No wood burning device (including fireplaces) fo r which a building permit application is submitted on or after February 1, 1994, may be installed in any new or existing dwelling unit unless it is one of the following. (San Luis Obispo County APCD)
EPA-certified Phase II wood burning devices; Non-EPA certified catalytic wood burning devi ces which emit less than or equal to 4.1 grams per hour PM; Non-EPA certified non-catalytic wood burning devices which emit less than or equal to 7.5 grams per hour PM; Pellet-fueled wood heaters; or Dedicated gas-fired fireplaces.

• All masonry and factory-built fireplaces used in new construction or remodel projects shall meet a maximum emission limit of 7.5 grams per hour PM. (Shasta County AQMD)Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-06

IV-65 

### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL Fireplace and wood stove emissions are highl y variable and are a function of wood characteristics and operating practices. In genera l, conditions which promote a fast burn rate and higher flame intensity enhance secondary co mbustion and thereby lower emissions. Studiesperformed by U.S. EPA have shown that new combustion device technology and nonconventional fuels (e.g., natural gas, manufactur ed logs, etc.) can considerably increase combustion efficiency and thereby signifi cantly reduce emissions. Consequently, a technologically effective control strategy would ensure that all new wood combustion devices (i.e., including fireplaces) meet U.S. EPA certifica tion standards (or other equivalent or more stringent standards 1 ) and would also accelerate the turnover of existing non-certified combustion units.

Based on a re-evaluation of the emissions i nventory for wood burning devices as well the feasibility analysis of potential control strategi es (to be conducted during rule development), a number of control strategies could be pursued including, but not limited to, those adopted by other air districts and those suggested by CARB. As part the rulemaking process, AQMD staff would investigate the effectiveness of other ai r districts’ regulations in relation to any conditions unique to Southern California. Stak eholders have recommended that the District emphasize cost-effective technological, incentive- based, and voluntary programs. Staff will work closely with stakeholders during the rule development process to determine which of the possible strategies identified in the control measur e, or additional strategies identified at that time, would be most feasible in terms of emission reduction potential, cost-effectiveness, potential socioeconomic impacts, and potential adverse environmental impacts.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION

Emission reductions associated with this cont rol measure would depend on the control strategy pursued, including the standards set for wood co mbustion devices. A U.S. EPA study estimated the PM emission reductions from the use of 10 alternatives to open radiant fireplaces with cordwood fuel. The reductions ranged from 46 percent for a double-shell convection, natural draft fireplace to 100 percent for gas-fired fire place (six of the 10 alternatives had reduction efficiencies 94 percent or great er). Likewise, the study evaluated the PM emission reductions for the use of five alternatives to conven tional stoves with cordwood fuel. The emission reductions ranged from 27 percent for a conventiona l stove with densified fuel to 92 percent for a pellet stove (four of the five alternatives had a reduction efficiency of 71 percent or greater).
Since the control strategy is uncertain at this time, projected emission reductions are also uncertain and require further analysis. It shoul d be noted that while controlling emission from residential wood burning is primarily intended to reduce PM10 emissions, an added benefit would also be reduced emissions of CO, VOC, NOx, SOx, and hazardous air pollutants.

1 More stringent standards may include thermal efficiency standards. Incr eased thermal efficiency likely reduces emissions since less fuel is consumed to produce the sa me amount of heat. There has been little incentive for manufacturers to increase thermal effici ency since efficiency testing is not required in the U.S. EPA New Source Performance Standard certification process.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-06

IV-66 

### RULE COMPLIANCE Compliance requirements for this control m easure would depend on the control strategy implemented.



### TEST METHODS The appropriate test methods for this contro l measure would depend on the control strategy implemented.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact a ssociated with implementing this control measure and will provide cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to adopt and enfor ce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain the state and federal ambient air quality standa rds in all areas affected by emission sources under its jurisdiction (Health and Safety Code §40001). Specifically, the District has the authority to reduce or mitigate emissions from area sources such as residential wood burning devices (Health and Safety Code §40716).



### REFERENCES CARB, Proposed Clean Air Plan (Rescinded), March 2002
CARB, Agenda, Public Meeting to Consider A pproval of a Suggested Control Measure for the Control of Emissions from Residential Wood Combustion, November 1989.

Great Basin Unified APCD, Rule 431 – Partic ulate Emissions – Town of Mammoth Lakes
Northern Sonoma APCD, Regulation IV - C ontrol Measure for Wood Fired Appliance Emissions.
San Luis Obispo APCD, Rule 504 - Residential Wood Combustion.
Shasta County AQMD, Rule 3:23 – Fireplace and Solid Fuel Heating Device Usage.
U.S. EPA, AP-42, Section 1.9, Residential Fireplaces, October 1996.

U.S. EPA, AP-42, Section 1.10, Residential Wood Stoves, October 1996.

U.S. EPA, Residential Wood Combustion Tec hnology Review - Volume 1. Technical Report
, EPA-600/R-98-174a, December 1998.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-07

IV-67 

### NATURAL GAS FUEL SPECIFICATIONS [NOx]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : N ATURAL G AS F UEL C OMBUSTION (S TATIONARY S OURCES )
C ONTROL M ETHODS : F UEL S PECIFICATIONS E MISSIONS ( TONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The purpose of this control measure is to s eek emission reductions from the combustion of natural gas with elevated higher heating valu e (referred to as “hot gas”) in stationary applications.


### Background Natural gas is a combustible, gaseous mixture primarily composed of methane (CH 4 ), with small amounts of more complex hydrocarbons, such as ethane (CH 6 ), propane (C 3 H 8 ), butane (C 4 H 10 ) and pentane (C 5 H 12 ). Natural gas delivered for use in Southern California is typically greater than 93 percent methane (1,013 British Thermal Units (Btu) per standard cubic foot [scf]). Natural gas produced from associated oil rese rves may contain high levels of ethane (1,792 Btu/scf) and propane (2,590 Btu/ scf) and, in California, averages 1,095 Btu/scf to 1,100 Btu/scf and ranges up to 1,181 Btu/scf. Th e elevated higher heating value (HHV) of such gas relative to natural gas with a lower heating value may re sult in increased combustion temperature and, possibly, increased NOx emissions. Combustion of natural gas with uncharacteristically higher heating values could increase stationary sour ce NOx emissions by greater than 20 percent, according to testing conducted by the SCAQMD on two pieces of non-residential natural gas fired equipment.
Natural gas is produced either from gas wells which do not produce any crude oil (nonassociated gas) or in conjunction with crude oil production (associated gas). Associated gas production tends to have are greater percenta ge of ethane, propane, and other hydrocarbons which elevate the HHV of the gas.
In California, associated gas is produced within the southern half of the state. Specifically, production of associated gas is concentrated in the Southern San Joaquin Valley (SSJV) and South Central Coast (SCC) region. In 1999, about 16 percent of the natural gas used in California was produced in the State and 84 pe rcent was imported from the Rockies and the southwestern United States, and Canada. Of the 16 percent of the natural gas produced in California, about 72 percent is associated gas.
Because associated gas is regionally produced, most of this gas is consumed locally. During the recent energy crisis in California, there has been an increase in natural gas production in the SanFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-07

IV-68 Joaquin Valley. Also, changes in supplier contr acts have resulted in decreased demand in that region. However, Southern California Gas Co mpany has installed a gas chromatograph and feedback controls at a key transmission point in their system in order to assure that SSJV produced associated gas is adequately blended before it gets to the Los Angeles basin.


### Regulatory History California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Gene ral Order 58-A (Standards for Gas Service in the State of California) sets standards for th e heating value and purity of natural gas. The PUC’s heating value standard requires uniform quality of the gas supplied, but does not specify an average, minimum, or maximum heating value. In regard to gas purity, PUC General Order 58-A sets standards for the hydrogen sulfide and total sulfide content of gas (0.25 grain/100 scf and 5 grains/100 scf, respectively). While associat ed gas can vary widely in properties, it meets the pipeline specifications for commercial natural gas.

District Rule 431.1 - Sulfur Content of Gaseous Fuels, limits the sulfur compound content of natural gas (calculated as hydrogen sulfide) to a maximum of 16 parts per million by volume. The District does not currently regulate the heating value of natural gas.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL Combustion of natural gas with uncharacteristica lly higher heating values results in increased combustion temperature and, possibly, increased NOx emissions. The control measure proposes to establish an upper HHV limit for natural gas fuel. Natural gas producers/suppliers could achieve the objective of this control strategy by e ither not supplying hot gas to the District, or by removing the more complex hydrocarbons or ot herwise reducing the Btu value of the hot gas. Complex hydrocarbons can be removed by condensing processes, while the addition of inerts can lower the Btu value. The District w ill continue data collection to further determine the relationship between the HHV for natural ga s fuel and NOx emissi ons from gas-fired equipment. Based on this information, the Dist rict will make a final determination about the potential emission reductions that can be realized from this measure.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Projected emission reductions are uncertain at this time, and require further analysis.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Compliance with this control measure would depend on the type of controls implemented.



### TEST METHODS The appropriate testing methods are uncertain at this time and would require further analysis.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-07

IV-69 

### COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact a ssociated with implementing this control measure and will provide cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to adopt and enfor ce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain the state and federal ambient air quality standa rds in all areas affected by emission sources under its jurisdiction (Health and Safety Code §40001).



### REFERENCES CARB, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons Proposed Amendments to the Alternative Fuels For Motor Vehicle Regulations, December 2001.
SCAQMD, “Effects of Hot Gas on Stationary Source Emissions,” Presentation to CAPCOA Mobile Source and Fuels Subcommittee, January 2003.

Public Utilities Commission, General Order 58-A: St andards for Gas Service in the State of California, April 1989.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-08

IV-70 

### FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM LARGE VOC SOURCES [VOC]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : L ARGE S TATIONARY P OINT AND A REA VOC S OURCES C ONTROL M ETHODS : E MISSION R EDUCTION P LAN ; E MISSION R EDUCTIONS FROM I NVENTORY R EVISIONS E MISSIONS ( TONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background Despite existing District regulations for stati onary point and area sources, these sources still represent a significant portion of the emissions i nventory in the South Coast Air Basin. In 2010, the stationary point sources and area sources under District's jurisdiction are estimated to contribute to approximately 83 tons per day (re presenting 13% of the 2010 VOC inventory) and 120 tons per day (representing 19% of the 2010 i nventory) of VOC emissions, respectively. The top 300 largest point sources in the Basin ar e estimated to contribute to approximately 70% of the stationary point sources in 2010.
The AQMP's point source emissions inventory is based on the reported emissions data by over 3,000 facilities under the Annual Emission Reporti ng (AER) Program, required under District Rule 301. For the 2003 AQMP, reported emissions from point source facilities in the 1996/97 AER Program were used to establish the 1997 baseline emissions for point sources. The 1997 baseline inventory for small permitted or unperm itted area sources, comprised of approximately 90 individual categories, was calculated base d on specific methodologies for each category. The projected emissions for point and area sources were then estimated by applying the demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, employment demographic factors) as well as the ru le factors (associated with implementation of District's adopted rules) to the 1997 baseline. Although inventory methodologies and emission data were evaluated and audited to repres ent the best available information, further improvements and refinements can be made to these inventory estimates.
Although the majority of the point source facilities are already subject to various source-specific District rules, the facility-wide mass emissions from the largest facilities still represent a significant source of emissions in the Basin. Additional opportunities may exist at the facility level (instead of across-the-board equipment process source category level) to achieve additional reductions based on implementation of feasible measures. The purpose of this measure is to allow SIP reductions through i nventory improvement and/or facility-based emission reductions.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-08

IV-71 

### Regulatory History VOC emissions from stationary point and area sources are currently regulated under various source-specific District Regula tion XI and Regulation IV rules. Emission data under the district’s jurisdiction was either based on th e reported data or source-specific inventory estimates and inventory projection methodology described in Appendix III of the 2003 AQMP.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL This control measure seeks to achieve further emission reductions from the largest stationary point sources through implementation of facility-s pecific emission reduction plans. Under this control measure, facilities will be required to s ubmit a plan to outline specific measures which would be implemented to reduce their overall emissions beyond the existing regulations and achieve a specified emission reduction target. Th ese measures could include, but are not limited to, add-on controls, process controls, produc t reformulations, and improved housekeeping practices. The reduction targets will be based on technology-based control targets for various source categories which would be developed by District staff and would take into account technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness. Under the District-approved emission reduction plan, facilities would have the flexibility to sel ect the most feasible combination of control technologies for their facility to achieve the re quired reductions. Should the reduction target at the facility be not technically feasible, it would ha ve to certify that all feasible measures have been implemented. This measure does not seek to curtail production rate. A mitigation fee may be considered as an option to requiring the implementation of potential controls.
In addition, the control measure proposes to ac tively improve emission estimates for any point and area source inventories as a prelude to contro l measure or rule development. If additional technical analysis, including source testing, i ndicates that actual emissions are less than previously estimated, the reductions would then be creditable toward SIP commitments. In order for reductions from improved emission calcu lation methodologies to be SIP creditable, a public review process will also be institute d to solicit comments and make appropriate revisions.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Projected emission reductions from implementation of this control measure cannot be quantified at this time and require further analysis.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Compliance with this control measure would de pend on the type of controls implemented by each facility. Facilities subject to this measure w ould be subject to reporting, recordkeeping, and monitoring to ensure that the emission control strategies are implemented and the corresponding emission reduction targets are achieved.



### TEST METHODS VOC monitoring and source testing would follow EP A or approved District guidelines or test methods.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-08

IV-72 

### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined and would depend on implementation of specific control strategies.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to regulate VOC emissions from stationary and point sources in the Basin.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003PRC-03(P2)

IV-73 

### EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM RESTAURANT OPERATIONS [PM10]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : R ESTAURANT O PERATIONS

C ONTROL M ETHODS : E XHAUST C ONTROL T ECHNOLOGY ; A DD -O N C ONTROLS ; G RILL D ESIGN C HANGES

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): A

NNUAL A VERAGE 1997 2006 2010 PM10 I NVENTORY 10.7 10.4 10.6 PM10 R EDUCTION 0.2 1.0 PM10 R EMAINING 10.2 9.6

C ONTROL C OST : $14,500 PER TON OF PM R EDUCED

I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Information presented in this control meas ure for restaurant operations (e.g., emissions inventory, control efficiency, and cost-effectiven ess) represents the current understanding of the source category. During the rule development process, the District will continue to collect and assess information, as it becomes available. In formation collected during the rule development process will be appropriately reflected in the rule applicability and requirements.


### Background Restaurants employ a number of cooking devices, such as charbroilers, deep fat fryers, griddles, ovens, and rotisseries which emit VOC and/or PM10. Griddles account for approximately fourteen percent of the total PM10 restaurant em issions inventory and fourteen percent of the total VOC emissions. Emissions from deep-fat fryers are negligible for PM10 and are seven percent of the VOC emission inventory. Oven emi ssions appear to be negligible. Thus, this control measure covers restaurant facilities which use charbroilers; the equipment responsible for 86 percent of the emissions from the restau rant operations source category. Approximately 33 percent of the estimated 29,000 restaurants in th e Basin use underfired charbroilers. Testing has shown that the majority of PM10 emissions from charbroilers are measured at 2.5 microns and below.
Charbroiling operations are the most common met hod of direct meat-firing by “quick service” and full-service restaurants. The charbroiler can be located either against the wall where the exhaust flows to a wall-mounted hood, or in the middle of the kitchen where the exhaust flows to an island-type hood. Depending on the numbe r of hoods and the ventilation configuration, other equipment such as deep fat-fryers and griddles may be vented to the same hood.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003PRC-03(P2)

IV-74 Charbroiling consists of three main components: a heating source, a high-temperature radiant surface, and a grill. The grill, which is grated, holds the meat while exposing it to the radiant heat. When grease (fat) and meat additives su ch as tenderizers fall from the cooking meat onto the high-temperature radiant surface, both VOC and PM10 emissions are generated. The decomposition of fat and food additives releases various gaseous organics including aldehydes, organic acids, alcohol, and nitrogen and sulfur compounds. Particulate emissions result from the fat being entrained when dripping grease flares up.
Charbroilers are further distinguished as either chain-driven or under-fired. A chain-driven is a semi-enclosed device with a mechanical chain, which automatically moves the food through the device. Under-fired means the heat source is located below the food. Restaurants chiefly operate flame-fired broilers during the dinner hour s of 6 PM to 8 PM. However, many “quick service” food establishments have direct-flame br oilers with peak operations from 11 AM to 2 PM and from 5 PM to 7 PM. Under-fired charbroilers are responsible for the majority of emissions from the restaurant operations source category (84 percent of PM10 emissions, and 71 percent of VOC emissions).


### Regulatory History Rule 219 – Equipment not Requiring a Written Perm it Pursuant to Regulation II, was amended September 11, 1998 to specifically exempt th e following equipment from written permit requirements of Rules 201 – Permit to Construct and Rule 203 – Permit to Operate:
“Equipment used in eating establishments for the purpose of preparing food for human consumption, including commercial charbroilers a nd associated control equipment subject to Rule 222.”
Rule 222 – Filing Requirements for Specific Em ission Sources not Requiring a Written Permit Pursuant to Regulation II, is a permit streamlin ing rule which requires sources subject to its provisions, to obtain a filing rather than a permit from the District. Sources operating by a filing and not a permit are not required to install Be st Available Control Technology (BACT). Deepfat fryers and griddles, due to their negligible emissions, are also exempt from permit and they are additionally exempted from filing requireme nts. These equipment may, however, share a hood which is venting a charbroiler and if cont rol equipment were installed in the hood, the emissions from all commonly vented equipment would be reduced.
Charbroilers, although exempted from permit and thus BACT, must comply with Rules 401 – Visible Emissions and 402 – Nuisance. In September 1998, Rule 401 was amended to allow commercial charbroilers to comply with the stat e standard of Ringleman 2 (40 percent) opacity reading for a period not to exceed three years (S eptember 2001), instead of the more stringent Ringleman 1 (20 percent) standard applied to most equipment operating control technology for under-fired charbroilers. In November 2001, this exemption was extended until November, 2005.

Commercial restaurant establishments must also comply with state requirements which usually follow the standards set forth by the Building Officials, and Code Administration’s Basic Mechanical Code and the National Fire Protecti on Agency’s National Fire Codes, as well asFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003PRC-03(P2)

IV-75 Health Department standards. These codes requi re restaurant facilities to operate and maintain sufficient grease removal devices and exhaust and ventilation systems. Such devices reduce grease particulate emissions but are not consid ered air pollution controls by the District.
On November 14, 1997, the District adopted Rule 1138 – Control of Emissions from Restaurant Operations. Specifically, this rule applies to commercial cooking operations using chain-driven charbroilers. Sources had until November 4, 1999, to install a flameless catalytic oxidizer control device and reduce PM10 and VOC emissions by approximately 83 percent. The rule, at full implementation, was estimated to reduce emi ssions from this portion of the restaurant operations source category by 0.5 ton per day of PM10 (almost entirely consisting of PM2.5) and 0.2 ton per day of VOC emissions.
The control measure for restaurant operations in the 1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone State Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air Basin includes both VOC and PM10 whereas this control measure in the 2003 AQMP targets PM10 only. The 1999 Amendments to the 1997 Ozone State Implementation Plan allow substituti on of emission reductions when another rule results in more emission reductions than pla nned. Due to the high costs associated with reducing VOC emissions from under-fired char broilers, the commitment for VOC emission reductions from restaurant operations has been met through a substitution of excess reductions achieved through implementation of other cont rol measures. In August 2000, the Governing Board directed staff to substitute VOC emissions reductions from another control measure that achieves emission reductions in excess of the AQMP projected reductions. While a control technology may produce reductions in both VOC and PM10 emissions, this control measure focuses on PM10 reductions.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL The University of California, College of Engi neering, Center for Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT), under contract with the AQMD is conducting a control technology assessment, testing possible cost-effective controls for under-fired charbroilers. A Restaurant Advisory Committee formed by CE-CERT, c onsisting of members representing academia, AQMD, industry and manufacturers, chose several technologies to be investigated.
CE-CERT investigated several potential commercial cooking emission control technology systems, including: microwave ceramic filter, cyclonic air scrubbing device and process design. Criteria for testing included the ability to reduce both PM10 and VOC emissions, cost, commercial availability, maintenance and operational requirements, and safety.
A microwave ceramic filter technology was teste d, based on the concept of filtering out the harmful emissions in the ventilation system a nd periodically regenerating the loaded filters using microwave energy. This process, revised due to poor overall performance after several initial tests, was tested again and still perfor med poorly. Also tested was a cyclonic air scrubbing device, which employs water and filters to remove PM10 and carbon beds to remove the VOC. Initial testing shows an 88 percent reduction in PM10 emissions and a 44 percent reduction in VOC emissions. An alternative to th ese and other prototype control technologies is the replacement of under-fired ch arbroilers with a Smokless TM broiler. The Smokless TM broiler is commercially available and is in use by a pproximately seventy restaurants in the UnitedFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003PRC-03(P2)

IV-76 States. The SmoklessTM broiler is not a control device but rather basic equipment similar to an under-fired charbroiler. However, the Smokless TM broiler is not a direct-flame cooker and it may result in a product that differs in appearance and/or taste. The Smokless TM broiler is estimated to result in a 75 percent reduction in PM10 emissions and a 71 percent reduction in VOC emissions.



### EMISSION REDUCTIONS The projected emission inventories and emi ssion reductions are provided in the Control Measure Summary. The 2010 emission inventory is estimated to be 10.6 tons of PM10 per day. The emission reduction target for Control M easure #2003PRC-03 is approximately 1 ton of PM10 per day reduction from this baseline. The 1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone SIP estimated that this control measure would ach ieve 7 tons per day. However, based on the limited availability of control options and the inhe rent costs associated with the probable control technologies, the expected emission reductions were reassessed and are now set at a target of 1 ton per day. Future rulemaking would seek to achieve the maximum emission reductions possible (i.e., greater penetration), given the ava ilable control technology and associated costs. If a control technology is found to be more co st-effective then those currently available, additional emission reductions are possible.



### RULE COMPLIANCE There are currently no available cost-effective c ontrols which could be applied to the entire population of charbroilers in the South Coast Air Basin. However, as cost-effective controls are identified, it seems appropriate that facilities subject to any future rules arising from implementation of this control measure maintain records at the restaurant regarding quantities and types of food cooked, equipment operations and maintenance. Implementation of an outreach program would improve compliance. Ma intenance of these records should not be a hardship in light of the fact that restaurant s typically track types of food and their volume cooked.



### TEST METHODS In conjunction with the rule development pro cess for Rule 1138 and associated source testing, the document “Protocol – Determination of Particulate and Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Restaurant Operations” was published November 14, 1997. These test methods are currently being used for testing of charbr oilers and potential control devices. The test methods are used by qualified labs to certify the emissions level of specific control systems but are not employed to test emissions at individual restaurants.



### COST-EFFECTIVENESS

The cost-effectiveness of this control measur e has been estimated to be $14,500 per ton using the installation of the cyclonic air scrubber as the basis for the cost estimates. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact s associated with implementing this control

measure.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003PRC-03(P2)

IV-77 

### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has authority to regulate PM10 emi ssions generated from restaurant operations. Implementation of this control measure is anticip ated to begin in 2004 with a phase-in approach structured to reduce capital costs of controls w ith larger restaurants achieving compliance first.



### REFERENCES Final report by Pacific Environmental Services , Inc., A Detailed Survey of Restaurant Operations in South Coast Air Basin; Contract No. 98089, February 1999.
Final report by University of California Rive rside, College of Engineering, Center for Environmental Research and Technology, Efficien t and Cost-effective Control Technologies for Underfired Charbroilers, Contract No. 98015, February 1999
Final report by University of California Rive rside, College of Engineering, Center for Environmental Research and Technology, Further Development of Emissions Test Methods and Development of Emission Factors for Various Commercial Cooking Operations, Contract No. 96027, July 1997.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. Status Report on Controlling Particulate Matter and Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Restaurant Operations, Agenda No. 20, August 18, 2000.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. Report on Feasibility of Emissions Reductions from Under-Fired Charbroilers, Agenda No. 19, May 14, 1999.
South Coast Air Quality Management Distri ct. 1999 Amendments to the 1997 Ozone State Implementation Plan for South Coast Air Basin, December 1999
South Coast Air Quality Management District. Protocol – Determination of Particulate and Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Restaurant Operations, November 14, 1997
South Coast Air Quality Management District. Staff report for Proposed Rule 1138 – Control of Emissions from Restaurant Operations, October 10, 1997.
Walden Research Corporation. Background In formation for Establishment of National Standards of Performance for New Sources – Deep Fat Frying. Prepared for the Office of Air Programs of the U.S. EPA, October 1971.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003PRC-07

IV-78 

### INDUSTRIAL PROCESS OPERATIONS [VOC]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : M ISCELLANEOUS I NDUSTRIAL P ROCESS O PERATIONS

C ONTROL M ETHODS : S TEP I: E MISSION I NVENTORY AND T ECHNOLOGY A SSESSMENT S TEP II: C ONTROL S TRATEGY D EVELOPMENT AND I MPLEMENTATION (E NHANCED I NSPECTION M AINTENANCE AND H OUSEKEEPING W ORK P RACTICES , P ROCESS M ODIFICATIONS , A DD -O N C ONTROLS )

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): A

NNUAL A VERAGE 1997 2006 2010 VOC I NVENTORY 15.8 13.9 15.1 VOC R EDUCTION 0.8 1.8 VOC R EMAINING 13.1 13.3
S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 1997 2006 2010 VOC I NVENTORY 18.1 15.4 16.9 VOC R EDUCTION 0.9 2.0 VOC R EMAINING 14.5 14.9

C ONTROL C OST : U P T O $13,500 P ER T ON O F VOC R EDUCED

I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY This control measure proposes to further contro l VOC emissions from miscellaneous industrial process operations. Control Measure #PRC-07 is based on Control Measure #ADV-PRC, which was part of the 1999 Amendment of the 1997 Oz one SIP Revision for the South Coast Air Basin.


### Background The source categories targeted under this control measure are permitted and unpermitted VOC sources that are involved in ma nufacturing or fabrication of polystyrene foam products, rubber, plastic, fiberglass, or chemical compounds, as well as those involved in the processing, handling, or storage of VOC cont aining materials. Emissions are primarily generated from material handling, use of chemicals, blowing agents, manufacturing processes, as well as storage, handling, and processing of resins, or th e drying/cooling of finished products. Sources under this control measure would also include bakeries, breweries, and other point and area sources under chemical, food, and agriculture products processing source categories.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003PRC-07

IV-79 

### Regulatory History Rubber products and plastic products manufacturi ng operations include processes that are not currently regulated under a source-specific District rule for the pollutant identified. However, they are subject to Rule 402 which limits th e discharge from any source causing a public nuisance, and to Rule 442 which controls the discha rge of organic solvents into the atmosphere. Other source categories targeted by this cont rol measure are regulated under other source specific Regulation XI rules.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL Since many of the source categories targeted by th is measure are not permitted, it is necessary to first identify and refine the emissions inventory and better characterize the sources of emissions, and industry operations and practices. Based on the findings, appropriate control methods can then be developed. Potential control met hods could include enhanced inspection and maintenance and other housekeeping work practices to reduce fugitive emissions from material transfer, storage, and processing. Process modi fication may also provide an effective control option to minimize or eliminate emission sources . Add-on controls may also be considered where feasible and cost-effective. Rule 1175 – Control of Emissions from the Manufacture ofPolymeric Cellular (Foam) Products is an example of an Regulation XI rule that may be reevaluated under this control measure. Opportunities may exist for the full or partial elimination of VOC-containing blowing agents with non-VOC blowing agents in the manufacturing of extruded polystyrene foam sheets which are controlled under Rule 1175. This measure will seek emission reductions from these and other processes that can potentially be modified, controlled, or converted.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION The projected VOC emissions and estimated em ission reductions are provided in the Control Measure Summary.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Depending on the control methods proposed, appropr iate rule compliance requirements will be developed, which may include, but are not limited to, operator inspection, maintenance, and recordkeeping. It may also be necessary to develop innovative rule implementation programs dealing with numerous non-permitted small sources.


### TEST METHODS Source testing methods will be determined on a case-by-case basis for various sources.


### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been specifically determined, but is expected to be no more than $13,500 per ton of VOC reduced. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact associated w ith implementing this control measure and will provide cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003PRC-07

IV-80 

### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to regulate VOC emissions from industrial processes.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-01

IV-81 

### EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM LIVESTOCK WASTE [VOC, NH 3 

### ]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : L IVESTOCK W ASTE

C ONTROL M ETHODS : E MISSION R EDUCTION C AN O CCUR F ROM O UT

- OF -B ASIN D AIRY C OW R ELOCATION , THE I MPACT OF W ATER Q UALITY R EGULATIONS , AND O THER C ONTROLS A S N EEDED , S UCH A S M ANURE R EMOVAL O UT OF THE B ASIN OR TO C ONTROLLED C OMPOSTING F ACILITIES OR A NAEROBIC D IGESTERS

. O THER P OTENTIAL C ONTROL O PTIONS I NCLUDE L OW -N ITROGEN F EEDS , P ROMOTION O F A EROBIC C ONDITIONS (E.G., E NZYMATIC A ND M ICROBIAL P RODUCTS ), I MPROVED H OUSEKEEPING P ROCEDURES O R O THER A PPROVED M ETHODS

E MISSIONS (D AIRIES O NLY ): A NNUAL A VERAGE 1997 2006 2010 VOC I NVENTORY 12.1 11.0 11.0 VOC R EDUCTION 4.2 4.8 VOC R EMAINING 6.8 6.2

NH 3 I NVENTORY 21.2 19.3 19.3 NH 3 R EDUCTION 8.7 8.7 NH 3 R EMAINING 10.6 10.6

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 1997 2006 2010 VOC I NVENTORY 12.1 11.0 11.0 VOC R EDUCTION 4.2 4.8 VOC R EMAINING 6.8 6.2

C ONTROL C OST : N OT A VAILABLE FOR VOC S ( REDUCTIONS DUE TO RELOCATION AND IMPACT OF WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS ). $2,000 TO $7,000 PER T ON OF A MMONIA R EDUCED

I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD W ITH T HE C OOPERATION O F W ATER A ND L OCAL A GENCIES 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background Livestock waste emissions are precursors to both ozone and particulate matter (PM10). VOCs contribute to ozone and ammonia is a precursor of secondary PM10 (aerosol particulates). The manure from the dense concentration of dairy operations in the Chino/Ontario area produces the most concentrated source of ammonia emissions in the Basin. Ammonia combines with nitric and sulfuric acid produced from upwind combustion sources (e.g. NO x and SO x sources in Los Angeles and Orange counties) to produce aerosol n itrates. High levels of ammonium nitrate andFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-01

IV-82 sulfate particulates are seen at monitoring sta tions downwind of the Chino/Ontario area; these stations typically record the highest levels of PM10 in the Basin. (Direct emissions of PM10 arise from wind entrainment from corral areas and stockpiles, wind entrainment of materials during feed preparation, and road dust from paved and unpaved roads on the livestock facilities. Rule 1186, adopted in 1997, regulates PM10 em issions from dairies produced by wind entrainment of materials during feed preparation, and road dust from unpaved roads at dairies.)

Recent Scientific Studies of Livestock Emissions In response to concerns of the local dairy indus try that previous dairy waste emission estimates (Radian, 1991) were not based on unique local conditions, the District initiated a $130,000 study of these emissions (SCAQMD, 1996). The da ta from the study was re-evaluated (ATC, 2000), resulting in a revised ammonia emission factor of 51 lbs/cow/year of ammonia. Little or no information is available on emissions from cal f and heifer manure. Based on current animal population data, manure data, and manure producti on estimates (e.g. 4.1 tons/year of manure per adult cow, 1.5 tons/year of manure per heifer and 0.6 tons/year of manure per calf), AQMD staff estimates that over 90% of the Basin’s manure is from adult cows.
There is currently controversy over the VOC emission factor used for dairy waste emissions. The current emission factor is based on a 1938 methane measurement study by Ritzman and Benedict. Successive literature studies have used these measurements to establish a VOC emission factor for dairy waste emissions. Unfortunately, an error in one of the literature studies (Taback, 1978) confused the methane emissions for total organic compound (TOC) emissions. As a result, CARB has historically used a 12.8 lbs VOC/head/year emission factor. Correcting for the TOC/methane ratio, the emi ssion factor would be 18.3 lbs VOC/head/year. In the 1997, 1999, and 2003 AQMPs, the AQMD used an emission factor of 16 lbs VOC/head/year. CARB is sponsoring additional m easurement studies to resolve the issues surrounding the dairy waste VOC emission factor, but this research will not be completed within the next year.
Based on recent dairy cow population informati on, the latest dairy emission estimates are approximately 21 tons per day of ammonia, a nd 6 tons per day of VOC emissions in the 1993 (and 1997) base year in the Basin, predominately concentrated in the Chino area.
The Local Dairy Industry A dairy farm or facility is an agricultural opera tion directly related to the raising cows or producing milk from cows for the purpose of ma king a profit or for a livelihood. In 2001, there were 312 dairies in the Basin with 252,900 milking co ws. Most of the dairies (87%) are located in the Chino-Ontario-Norco region, which was a previously designated Agricultural Preserve. Most of the remaining dairies are in the San Jacinto watershed region. Most dairy farms in the Basin are “dry lot corral” dairies. Dairy cows live in open corrals, with feed lanes usually along one side of the corral. Manure is generally cleared from the feed lane into the corral, and then periodically removed from the corral, either to on-site stockpiles or off-site. The high concentration of animals per acre of land results in a larger volume of manure stored in corrals, stockpiles and to a much smaller extent, holding ponds. This high density of livestock, as well as the location of dairies, limits manure disposal options. Few dairies have pastures on which to spread the manure, and there are only a few local composters that use the manure.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-01

IV-83 The land occupied by dairies and other livestock facilities in the Chino Basin were part of an Agricultural Preserve until recently. Land in the Agricultural Preserve could not be sold for non-agricultural purposes, placing a serious restric tion on facilities that may prefer to relocate for other reasons. This is also true for livestock facilities that are under contract with the State, based on the 1965 Williamson Act. In 1997, th e Agricultural Preserve designation was rescinded, allowing dairy farms to be sold for development. However, as of January 2001, two thirds of the dairy properties are still under the Williamson Act. In 1999, the Local Agency Formation Commission granted the City of Chi no annexation rights to 7,000 acres and the City of Ontario the annexation rights to 8600 acres. As a result, dairy relocation in these areas has accelerated. Both cities are moving forward with development plans for the annexed areas.
In summary, urbanization pressure in the Chi no Basin is causing many dairies to relocate or make plans to relocate. This is evidenced by the downward trend in the number of dairy cows, approximately 2% per year since 1997. This 2% pe r year relocation rate is used to determine future baseline emissions. Industry estimates th at only 50% of the dairies in operation in the mid-1990s will remain permanently in the Basin. At the current rate of relocation, this level of dairies will occur by 2020. (The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) estimates that the 50% level will be reached in 2015, indicating a 3% per year relocation rate.) With the reduction in dairy cows, emissions from dairy waste will decrease proportionally.
Recent Water Quality Regulations In 1999, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) adopted Order No. 99-11, “General Waste Discharge Requirements fo r Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Dairies and Related Facilities) within the Santa Ana Region.” This order required, among other things, that 1) existing stockpiles on or o ff of dairies be removed by the end of 2002; 2) manure removed from the corrals must be remove d form the dairies within 180 days and these “clean days” be reported to SARWQCB; and 3) manure can only be spread on cropland in agrometric rates and expeditiously incorporated into the soil. Dairies are also required to submit Annual Report of Animal Waste Discharge to the SARWQCB each year that includes dairy location, animal population, and manure dis posal information (e.g., on-farm cropland application, manure hauled away and its destinati on), and any historical stockpiles that have not been removed. Except for a small amount of ma nure spread on cropland at the dairy, manure is currently hauled from the dairies to composting facilities (~20%) or applied to cropland (~80%). Before Order No. 99-11, most manure was spread on local croplands in the Santa Ana and San Jacinto regions. In 2001, and with restrictions on manure spreading in the Santa Ana region (including the former Agricultural Preserve), most manure spread on croplands is spread in the San Jacinto region (51% of total manure), with about 15% of total manur e now going out of the Basin. Water quality requirements have asso ciated air emission reduction benefits. Specifically, expedited removal of manure re duces the time over which the manure produces and emits VOCs and ammonia. Also, land a pplication regulations restrict manure overapplication to cropland and expedite the inco rporation of manure into the soil, where its emission potential is significantly less.
The Inland Empire Utilities Association (IEUA) is developing state-of-the-art composting and anaerobic digester facilities. As noted in thei r recent Business Plan, IEUA ultimately plans that the majority of the local dairy waste will be processed at such facilities.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-01

IV-84 Other Livestock Waste Emissions Based on the Basin’s current ammonia inventory, other livestock waste, particularly poultry waste, emits appreciable levels of ammonia. However, due the geographical location of Basin poultry farms (e.g., not highly concentrated as da iries, mostly downwind of peak PM10 areas), they are not the focus of this control measure. The impact of the new PM2.5 standards, new modeling analyses, and identification of cost-eff ective controls, could change the status of poultry in this control measure in future SIPs.


### Regulatory History Neither the District nor any other air agency in the nation regulates criteria air emissions from livestock operations. State law previously prohibited air districts from issuing permits to agricultural activities. Agricultural operations can, however, be subject to air quality rules (c.f. Rule 403 agricultural dust control provisions). In settlement of a lawsuit challenging U.S. EPA’s approval of California’s Title V permitting pr ogram, U.S. E.P.A. agreed to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking no later than July 19, 2002, to implement a partial federal operating air permits program under 40 C.F.R. Part 71 for stat e-exempt agricultural sources. Petitioners had challenged U.S. E.P.A. approval of California’ s Title V program because state law exempts agricultural operations from permits from local air districts. The settlement provides that if California removes its agricultural sources permitting exemptions, U.S. E.P.A. may grant full approval to the covered Part 70 programs and discontinue the federal permit program.
As part of the rule development process, staff has followed the work of the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (US DA), and other federal and state agencies on the assessment of air emissions from agricultural operations. Distri ct staff is not aware of any specific state or federal agency that regulates ammonia or VOC em issions from dairy operations. Odor can be a complaint of people living near dairy operations. Odor control measures could have an impact on reducing ammonia and VOC emissions. Some st ates (such as North Carolina and Iowa) and localities have odor control policies. The policie s include site selection and maintaining an adequate distance form neighboring residences a nd other CAFOs, adequate waste collection and drainage of feedlot surfaces, restrictions on th e use of anaerobic lagoons and guidelines for the amount and time that manure can be land applie d as fertilizer, among others. The livestock industry is subject to federal and state regulati ons for food safety, water quality, as well as other regulations.
The 1991, 1994, 1997, and 1999 AQMPs included a contro l measure to reduce emissions from livestock waste. Rule 1186, adopted in Febr uary 1997, implemented the primary PM10 portion of the 1997 AQMP version of WST-01.
The District is currently developing Proposed Rule 1127 (PR 1127), “Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste.” PR 1127 would implement control measure WST-01. To support the District’s rule development efforts, Distri ct staff initiated a PR 1127 (Livestock Waste Management Practices) Working Group that is compri sed of District staff, members of the dairy community, experts on dairy issues and other re gulatory agency staff. The PR 1127 Working Group has assisted AQMD staff in developing and peer-reviewing livestock waste control research projects. An AQMD contractor has prepar ed a series of reports on current and potentialFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-01

IV-85 waste management practices that could be used by Basin dairies to reduce emissions. These reports are:
Report 1: Current Livestock Waste Management Practices in the Basin Report 2: Literature and National Program Survey Report 3: Identification and effectiveness assessment of control options Report 4: Recommendation of Control Options for the Basin
AQMD staff has recently initiated another contract study to identify manure and feed additives that could potentially reduce dairy waste emissions, as well as test protocols that could be used to quantify and certify the product’s effectiveness.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL
Ammonia: The proposed methods of control are primarily orie nted toward reducing emissions of ammonia. As discussed previously, dairies may be m oving from the Basin, and the old Agricultural Preserve area in particular, due to land use a nd economic reasons. The emission reductions will be achieved based on both relocation and actual control measures. The implementation of various control methods for dairy operations will follow a two-phase approach:
(1) The 1997 AQMP/PM10 SIP establishes a “carry ing” capacity for ammonia emissions, particularly for livestock emissions. This “carrying” capacity is set to ensure attainment of the PM10 standards, as determined by the attainment demonstration. Emission reductions from livestock relocati on outside of the Basin will be counted toward the 50% emission reduction requirement from the 1993 baseline for the livestock industry. In particular, if suffi cient relocation of dairy cows and other livestock occurs or is committed to occur by January 1, 2004, no further ammonia controls will be required for the remaining livestock facilities.
(2) If the January 1, 2004 targets are not met remaining dairy and other livestock facilities will be subject to ammonia controls . The level of control will be set by the emission reductions still required to meet the 50% reduction from the 1993 baseline emissions, after reducing the inventory due to relocation

. Recent staff estimates demonstrate that relocation and the impact of recent water quality regulations could reduce diary emissions by 43% from the 1993 baseline emission levels by 2006. Additional control measures to reduce amm onia emissions are described below, along with current estimates of their control efficiency and costs. Dairies and other livestock facilities will be able to choose the control method(s) based on their own technical and economic considerations, as long as the required emission reductions are met.
Ammonia, VOC, and methane emissions are diffi cult to control in part because the manure cannot always be economically and quickly rem oved from facilities and treated. Storage in corrals and stockpiles is generally under conditions that allow for some anaerobic decomposition. To reduce emissions of amm onia (and possibly VOCs), a number of controlFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-01

IV-86 methods could be used. An AQMD contract survey by TetraTech, Inc. has identified the following control technologies that will reduces air emissions from livestock waste. The manure handling practices are classified as “on-dairy” or “off-dairy” technologies.

1. On-Dairy Options

a. House Keeping & Best Management Practices i. More frequent corral cleaning & manure removal ii. Eliminating manure stockpiles/reducing duration of stockpiling iii. Stockpile covers b. Nutrition/Ration management i. Use of somatropin ii. Crude protein reduction iii. Rumen degradable protein reduction & utilization improvement

c. Wastewater covered anaerobic digester lagoons d. Wastewater storage pond covers i. Biofilter biomass blankets ii. Leca Rock iii. Plastic Covers iv. Concrete & Covered Tanks

e. Wastewater storage pond treatments f. Biological/Microbial additives g. Chemical Additives
2. Off-Dairy Options

a. Land application with Best Management Practices i. Inside Basin ii. Outside Basin b. Dairy Relocation i. Young stock relocation outside Basin ii. Dairy Relocation outside Basin

c. Composting Inside Basin i. Enclosed aerated static pile (ASP) ii. Open ASP iii. Open Windrow d. Composting Outside Basin i. Enclosed ASP ii. Open ASP iii. Open Windrow

e. Regional anaerobic digestion systems f. Regional high-tech manure processing g. Drying-combustion-energy production

Many of these potential control options cannot be sufficiently quantified for current use in a regulatory program or are not suitable or cost-eff ective for the type of dairying that is done in the Basin. Based on AQMD staff analysis and c ontract reports, the following control options are most likely to be implemented:Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-01

IV-87 1. Relocation (due to farm economics only) 2. Water Quality Regulations, including: Bi-annual removal of manure from dairies, and Restricted land application of manure and land application regulations 3. Open composting (baseline condition) 4. Anaerobic digesters 5. Enclosed composting 6. Increased out-of-Basin disposal
The District recognizes that additional study w ill be needed to quantify additional control methods and adequately identify the related i ssues and impacts. Through the PR 1127 Working Group, District staff will seek the cooperation of the livestock industries, the University of California Cooperative Extension, related regulat ory agencies, academia, and others to study these and other control methods. District sta ff also recognizes that CDFA and FDA approval may be necessary for some of the control methods , and will work with the livestock industry to ensure that cross-regulatory concerns are addressed.


### Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):

The emission reductions associated with reloca tion and water quality regulations already exceed the control measure’s VOC emission reduction targ et. Because of this, no additional control methods are explicitly required for VOC emissi on reductions. However, controls on ammonia emissions will result in a small amount of add itional VOC reductions. These reductions will be in excess of the 2003 AQMP (Ozone SIP) requirements for this control measure.


### Other Impacts The alternative uses and disposal methods pr oposed herein may mitigate some water quality impacts in the Santa Ana Watershed Basin.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION The 1997 base year emissions and projected future year emissions in 2006 and 2010 for ammonia and VOC are provided in the Cont rol Measure Summary. The 1997 base year emissions are carried over from the 1993 base line emission inventory estimated for the 1997 AQMP. There was very little change between the emissions inventory for 1993 and 1997, so they are identical. In addition, the drop in baseline emissions inventory between 1997 and 2006 can be attributable to the relocation of dair y operations. Revised VOC emissions, consistent with the latest PR 1127 data sources, will be included in the final 2003 AQMP. Ammonia emissions are based on the latest emission fact ors and animal population data. The estimated emission reductions anticipated from implementa tion of this measure are identified for 2006 and 2010 based on the annual average inventory for VOC and ammonia and the summer planning inventory for VOC. Ammonia emission reducti ons from dairy operations, either through relocation or control, are estimated to be 50 percent from 1993 emission levels. Reductions presented in the summary table take into acc ount the relocation of dairy operations, water quality regulations, and the impact of Proposed Rule 1127.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-01

IV-88 

### RULE COMPLIANCE Compliance with this control measure can be monitored through recordkeeping and inspections. The District can monitor the overall level of re location of dairies and determine the resulting ammonia emission reductions, using SARWQ CB annual data. Depending on the control options implemented, the District may require one or more of the following: proof of the use of alternate feeds to reduce emissions; repair records for leaking water troughs and piping; the date of manure removal from feed lanes, corrals or dairy stockpiles along with certification by the person performing the activity; acreage of the co rrals and stockpile areas, and the type and quantity of ammonia inhibitor used (if any). If the measure is ultimately extended to poultry farms, their operators could periodically submit to the District the following information: the maximum number of poultry managed during th e preceding six months; and the type and quantity of ammonia emission inhibitor used.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The predominant control options are shippi ng manure out of the basin, processing it at anaerobic digesters, or processing it at a control composting facility. Cost for disposal actions are $7.50/ton of manure shipped to the Sa n Jacinto area in the Basin, $12/ton for shipping/tipping at a current (open-windrow) composting facility, $13/ton for shipping to Bakersfield (out-of-Basin), $16/t on for shipping to the Mojave desert or Imperial county, and $20/ton for tipping at an anaerobic digester. Ba sed on farmers choosing the most inexpensive control option (shipping out of the Basin), prelim inary cost-effectiveness estimates range from $2,000 to $7,000 per ton of ammonia reduced. Rule development will further refine the costeffectiveness estimate. (The VOC emission reducti on target is achieved without further control, thus no cost-effectiveness calculations for the control measure are necessary.)



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE The District has the authority to implement this measure. Implementation is scheduled to begin in 2004, with full implementation in 2006. The SARWQCB continues to be responsible for implementing Order No. 99-11 and other water quality regulations for local dairies.



### REFERENCES Abt Associate, Inc., Apelberg, B, McCubbin, D., Divita, F., Roe, S., Air Quality Impacts of Livestock Waste , September 2000.

ATC, M.C. Chitjian, M. Koizumi, C.W. Botsford, G. Mansell and E. Winegar, Final 1997 Gridded Ammonia Emission Inventory U pdate for the South Coast Air Basin, August 2000.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region, Results of 2001 Annual Report Analysis , August 2002.
City of Chino, The Preserve, Chino Sphere of Influence – Subarea 2, Draft Environmental Impact Report , SCH # 2000121036, September 2001.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-01

IV-89 Earsom, James. Chino Basin Work With Dairies. Soil and Water Conservation Society and Southern California Coalition of Resource C onservation Districts’ Regional Workshop. September 1996.
Environmental Protection Agency. Results of the Measurement of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from Livestock Waste. January 1995.
Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Chino Basin Or ganics Management Strategy Business Plan
, May 2001.
National Research Council, The Scientific Basis for Estimating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Interim Report , 2002.
NC State University, Dairy Production Newsletter , April 1999.
Radian, R.J. Dikson. Development of the A mmonia Emission Inventory for the Southern California Air Quality Study . September 1991.
Riverside County, California, Ordinance No. 427.3, An Ordinance of the County of Riverside Regulating The Land Application of Manure , April 2001.
Ritzman, E.G., and Benedict, F.G., Nutritional physiology of the adult Ruminant . Carnegie Inst. Washington, 1938.
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Fact Sheet, General Waste Discharge Requirements for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Dairies and Related Facilities) within the Santa Ana Region, Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAG018001 , August 1999.
Schmidt, C.E., Ph.D, Winegar, E., Ph.D. Final T echnical Report Results of the Measurements of PM10 Precursor Compounds (PM10PCs) From Dairy Industry Livestock Waste , June 1996.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. Projected Air Quality as a Result of Reducing Emissions from the Livestock Industry in the South Coast Air Basin. June 1993.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. Results of the Measurement of PM10 Precursor Compounds from Dairy Industry Livestock Waste. June 1996.
Splansky, Joel. A Geography of Dairying in th e Los Angeles Basin: Past and Present . Fall 2000
Taback, H. et al. Control of Hydrocarbon Emissi ons From Stationary Sources in the California South Coast Air Basin , October 1984.
Tetra Tech Inc., Egigian-Nichols, Task 1 - Survey Current Livestock Waste Management Practices in the South Coast Air Basin, January 2002.
Tetra Tech, Inc., Egigian-Nichols, Task 2 – Literature Survey and National Programs, Livestock Waste Management Practices Survey and Control Option Assessment , Draft Report, May 2002.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-01

IV-90 Tetra Tech Inc., Egigian-Nichols, Task 3 – Identify Potential Waste Management Practices Reducing Ammonia and VOCs, Livestock Waste Management Practices Survey and Control Option Assessment , Preliminary Draft Report, November 2002.
United Nations, Economic Commission for Europe, Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, Working Group on Technology. Report on Abatement Techniques to Reduce Ammonia Emissions from Agricultural Livestock. January 1996.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-02

IV-91 

### EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM COMPOSTING [VOC, NH 3 

### , PM10]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : C OMPOSTING AND R ELATED O PERATIONS
C ONTROL M ETHODS : A LTERNATIVE C OMPOSTING M ETHODS , E MISSION C ONTROL E QUIPMENT
E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): A

NNUAL A VERAGE 1997 2006 2010 VOC I NVENTORY 6.8 6.8 6.8 VOC R EDUCTION 1.2 1.2 VOC R EMAINING 5.6 5.6
NH 3 I NVENTORY 4.7 4.7 4.7 NH 3 R EDUCTION 1.9 1.9 NH 3 R EMAINING 2.8 2.8
S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 1997 2006 2010 VOC I NVENTORY 6.8 6.8 6.8 VOC R EDUCTION 1.2 1.2 VOC R EMAINING 5.6 5.6

C ONTROL C OST : $10,000 P ER T ON OF VOC AND NH 3 R EDUCED
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD, L OCAL G OVERNMENTS 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The 1994 and 1997 AQMPs as well as the 1999 amendments to the 1997 Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the South Co ast Air Basin included the proposed Control Measure WST-02 – Emission Reductions from Co mposting. The control measure was proposed to be implemented in two phases. Under Ph ase I, an emissions inventory of composting operations would be developed based on additiona l source tests and improved test protocols. Depending on the significance of these emissions , Phase II would identify specific control options to reduce emissions (VOC and ammonia) from composting activities. In order to implement the proposed control measure, AQM D staff conducted a technical assessment for composting and related operations which provided background information on the composting industry, estimated the emissions inventory for composting operations, evaluated various composting methods and control technologies, and conducted cost-effectiveness analysis (SCAQMD, 2002). The proposed control measure pres ented herein incorporates the results of the technology assessment.


### Background Composting is a biological process where or ganic materials including, but not limited to, biosolids (solid waste from wastewater treatme nt), manure, or greenwaste (grass clippings, tree trimming, leaves) are decomposed by microorga nisms under controlled environment to produceFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-02

IV-92 compost products. In general, compost is a stab le, pathogen-free product that can be used as a soil amendment and/or fertilizer. From an indus trial perspective, composting is an important component of the solid waste industry and it provides resource conservation through source reduction, recycling, and reuse. However, the composting operations result in air emissions that are currently uncontrolled and are not subject to any District source-specific regulation. Source testing conducted by the District and California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) have indicated that composting and related operations contribute to significant levels of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH 3 ) emissions in the South Coast Air Basin.
VOCs are of concern because they contribute to th e formation of ozone, and also transform into organic aerosols in the atmosphere, contributing to higher PM10 levels and lower visibility. Ammonia is of concern because it reacts in the atmospheric with nitrates and sulfates to form secondary particles, which make up a substantia l portion of PM10. Ozone is classified as a criteria pollutant and is considered to be a d eep lung irritant, causing respiratory problems. PM10 is also classified as a criteria pollutant and is of concern because particles less than 10 microns can be deposited in, and can damage, the airways of the lower respiratory tract and the gas-exchange portions of the lung.
The composting and related operations industr y consists of composting and chipping and grinding facilities. Based on information obtaine d from the CIWMB’s permit database, District permit system, District-conducted surveys, a nd field inspections, 277 facilities have been identified within this industry. These facilities can be classified into four main categories: 1) cocomposting facilities; 2) greenwaste composting facilities; 3) chipping and grinding facilities; and, 4) small/non-commercial composting f acilities. Co-composting facilities include composting facilities that use putrescible materi als, such as, biosolids and/or manure in combination with greenwaste or foodwaste to produce compost products. Greenwaste composting facilities are composting facilities that use greenwaste as raw feedstock materials or greenwaste combined with small amounts of manure. Chipping and grinding facilities are facilities dedicated to the size reduction of greenwa ste or wood waste to be used in composting, as alternative daily cover (ADC) for landfills, as feedstock for waste-to-energy facilities, or for producing mulch. Small/non-commercial composting facilities include operations such as nurseries, recreational composting, community composting, and portable chipping/grinding activities.

The technology assessment provided an analysis of several composting control methods available to industry including: windrow, enclos ures, forced aeration systems, and in-vessel composting. Emissions from composting operations conducted inside enclosures or using forced aeration systems and in-vessel systems can be ve nted to emission control equipment such as biofilters. Forced aeration and in-vessel systems can also be enclosed, with all emissions vented to control equipment. Also available are other composting methods that employ variations of invessel and forced-air aeration systems that may be considered as closed-loop systems capable of achieving very high capture and control efficiencies

. In this region, with the exception of three facilities, the predominant method of co-com posting is windrow composting. In windrow composting, materials are moved with front-end loaders into long piles called windrows. Aeration for this method of composting is achieved mechanically by the turning of the piles with front-end loaders or scarabs machines. The temp erature and moisture are monitored to optimizeFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-02

IV-93 and hasten decomposition. After two to four m onths in the windrows, the material becomes compost. Based on the analysis conducted in the technology assessment, control methods and technologies exist today that can significantly reduce emissions from co-composting operations.


### Regulatory History Composting operators are required to comply w ith District Rule 401 - Visible Emissions, and Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. Chipping and grinding operators are required to comply with the previously mentioned rules as well as with Rule 402 – Nuisance. Operators of both composting and chipping and grinding facilities may also have equipment requiring permits under Rule 203 - Permit to Operate. The CIWMB has also promulgated a set of regulations governing composting operations and facilities. Depending on the type of composting materials and the throughputs, affected facilities are required to obtain a Registration Permit, a Standardized Composting Permit, or a Full Solid Waste Facilities Permit (Full Permit). Full Permits require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and are issued by CIWMB while Registration and Standardized Permits are issued through local enforcement agencies (LEAs), such as the environmental health departments. Also, the CIWMB is currently proposing amendments to its regulations, in part, to address the increasing number of odor complaints by requiring an Odor Impact Minimization Plan (OIM P) which must be developed by each facility. For a summary of the regulatory programs that are applicable or pertinent to the composting and related operations industry, refer to the technology assessment report.

At the April 2002 Board meeting, the District’s Governing Board conducted a Pre-Hearing on controlling VOC and ammonia emissions from co mposting and related operations and received staff’s Technology Assessment Report. The technology assessment identified and evaluated a number of feasible control technologies fo r co-composting operations and also included recommendations for a registration program for composting related facilities as well as holding time requirements for greenwaste chipping and gr inding activities. Accordingly, the Governing Board directed District staff to proceed with rulemaking and to develop a series of proposed rules to address each sector of the composting and related operations industry independently. Also, a Composting Technical Advisory Committ ee (CTAC) was established to oversee the ongoing technical studies of cost-effective composting control technologies and assist District staff during rule development. In addition, a Co-Composting subcommittee to CTAC was subsequently formed to further evaluate specific issues related to controlling emissions from cocomposting operations. Rules 1133, 1133.1 and 1133.2 were adopted in January 2003, and for the most part are based on the technology assessm ent as well as subsequent analysis conducted by District staff.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL This control measure will be implemented in two phases. Under phase 1, a series of rules will be developed and implemented which would: 1) set forth general administrative/registration requirements for composting and chipping and gr inding facilities; 2) establish holding and/or processing (e.g., chipping and gri nding, on-site applications) time requirements for greenwaste in order to prevent inadvertent decomposition from occurring at chipping and grinding facilities associated with stockpiling greenwaste for extende d periods of time; and, 3) set forth VOC andFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-02

IV-94 ammonia emission reduction requirements for the co-composting sector of the composting and related operations industry.
Under the first phase of this control measure, operators of co-composting operations will be required to achieve VOC and ammonia emission reduction targets using any combination of composting methods and control technologies included, but not limited, to enclosures, aeration systems, best management practices, process cont rols, as well as add-on control devices, such as biofilters. Rules 1133, 1133.1 and 1133.2, adopted in January 2003, would implement the first phase of this control measure.
The second phase would include the identifica tion of control options to reduce VOC and ammonia emissions from greenwaste composting and food waste composting operations. This would include refinement of the emissions invent ory as well as identification of cost-effective emission reduction strategies (e.g., best management practices, operational controls, etc.) for these sectors of the industry. Although emissi ons from greenwaste composting operations are significant (approximately 4.6 tons of VOC and 1 ton of ammonia per day) and control options for these operations could result in significant re ductions, the affordability analysis presented in the technology assessment demonstrated that the cost impact for this industry would be substantial. Therefore, specific control requirements are not proposed for greenwaste composting operations under the proposed rules 1133 series. Staff would, however, continue to work with all stakeholders including the Ca lifornia Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), sanitation districts and local muni cipalities to seek funding sources and identify feasible control methods for greenwaste composting operations.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION The emissions inventory and reductions for this control measure are summarized in the Control Measure Summary table. The emissions inventor y for this industry is estimated at 6.8 and 4.7 tons per day of VOC and ammonia respec tively for both co-composting and greenwaste composting operations. Emissions from co-com posting operations are estimated at 1.7 and 2.7 tons per days for VOC and ammonia, respectiv ely; and emissions from greenwaste and other composting operations are estimated at 5.1 a nd 2 tons per day of VOC and ammonia, respectively.
Implementation of this control measure for co-composting operations is expected to result in VOC and ammonia emission reductions of 1.2 a nd 1.9, respectively, representing a 70% overall reduction of VOC and ammonia emissions from existing co-composting operations. During phase 2, the District staff will con tinue to work with all stakeholders and affected industries to refine emission estimates and identify feasible control methods for greenwaste and food waste composting operations.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Compliance with this control measure would be determined and verified by source testing, site inspections, record keeping and reporting requirements.



### TEST METHODSFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-02

IV-95 Source testing for VOC and NH 3 would follow EPA or approved District guidelines or test methods such as District Method 25.3, EPA Me thod 24, and District Method 207.1. Alternative test methods may be used subject to the approval of EPA, ARB, and the District.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost-effectiveness of reducing emissions from co-composting operations is estimated to be $10,000 per ton of VOC and NH 3 reduced. This cost-effectiveness calculation is based on a combination of concrete enclosures, aeration systems, and biofilters for existing facilities.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE The District has the authority to implement this control measure, and would work in cooperation with local governments that issue solid waste f acility permits. This control measure would be implemented beginning in 2007 with full implementation by the end of 2009.



### REFERENCES Los Angeles County Sanitation District. Co rrespondence to the South Coast Air Quality Management District. July 5, 1994.
South Coast Air Quality Management District . “Emission Rate Characterization of Open Windrow Sludge Composting Operations.” October 1995.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. “Characterization of Ammonia, Total Amine, Organic Sulfur Compounds, and Total N on-Methane Organic Compounds (TGNMOC) Emissions from Composting Operations. January 1996.
South Coast Air Quality Management Distri ct. “Technology Assessment for Proposed Rule 1133 – Emission Reductions from Composti ng and Related Operations”. March 2002.
South Coast Air Quality Management District . “Final Staff Report for Proposed Rules 1133, 1133.1, and 1133.2”. January 2003.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-04

IV-96 

### EMISSION CHARGES OF $5,000 PER TON OF VOC FOR STATIONARY SOURCES EMITTING OVER 10 TONS PER YEAR [VOC]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : S TATIONARY S OURCES OF VOC E MITTING O VER 10 T ONS PER Y EAR
C ONTROL M ETHODS : E MISSION C HARGES
E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED
C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD, P OSSIBLY R EQUIRING A DDITIONAL L EGISLATION 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background District records indicate that there are approxi mately 410 facilities with VOC emissions greater than or equal to ten tons per year in the Basin. Although these facilities represent approximately ten percent of the total number of VOC-emitting facilities, these larger VOC facilities represent approximately 80 percent of the total VOC emissi ons from stationary sources in the Basin. These facilities represent a variety of emission sources such as, but not limited to, coatings, solvents, graphic arts materials, and fugitive emissions from refineries and chemical plants.
The Lewis Presley Air Quality Management Ac t authorized the South Coast Air Quality Management District to collect fees based on emissions. Fees collected would be used for administrative purposes only. Since 1977, the Distri ct has collected emission fees from owners or operators of permitted equipment based on the total annual weight of VOC emissions. This contingency control measure proposes to impos e an emission charge of $5,000 per ton of VOC for stationary sources emitting over ten tons per year.


### Regulatory History Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 40510, the District has the authority to adopt a fee schedule for the issuance of permits to cover the cost of evaluation, planning, inspection, and monitoring related to that activity. Under Rule 301 - Permit Fees, the District requires facilities with permitted equipment to pay an annual emi ssions fee, in addition to the annual operating permit fee. The emissions fee is based on the total weight of emissions of each pollutant emitted, and is assessed on facilities with total annual emissions greater than four tons.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL The l990 federal Clean Air Act requires that th e AQMP include all control measures, means or techniques, including economic incentives such as fees, as may be necessary to reach attainment. Further, the Act requires that all st ationary sources of VOC emissions (greater than 10 tons per year) in an extreme nonattainment area that has failed to attain the ambient air quality standard for ozone pay a fee as a penalty for such failure (Title I, Section 185).Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-04

IV-97 This control measure proposes that if the federa l ambient air standards are not met by the year 2010, the District shall impose an emissions fee of $5,000 per ton of VOC, emitted by each major source in excess of 80 percent of the sour ces baseline emissions. The fee rate will be adjusted annually to reflect increases in the c onsumer price index. The fee shall be paid for each calendar year after the year 2010 and until the area is redesignated as an ozone attainment area. This fee will be in addition to the annual emission fee required by District Rule 301.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Implementation of this measure is expected to result in emission reductions as facilities seek to further reduce emissions to reduce the fees pr oposed by this measure. Projected emission reductions are uncertain at this time, and require further analysis.



### TEST METHODS

VOC test methods must follow EPA or District approved guidelines or test methods. EPA and District-approved VOC test methods include the following:

1. EPA Reference Test Method 24 (CFR Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A) - Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface Coatings.

2. SCAQMD “Laboratory Methods of Analysis for Enforcement Samples” Manual - VOC Concentration of Materials, Test Method #304.
Alternative guidelines may be used provided they are first approved by the EPA, ARB, and the District.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact a ssociated with implementing this control measure and will provide cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority under the Lewis Pr esley Air Quality Management Act to collect fees based on emissions. However, implementation of this control measure may require additional legislation.



### REFERENCES South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 301 - Permit Fees. Amended June 1993.

## GROUP 6 Compliance Flexibility ProgramFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FLX-01

IV-99 

### ECONOMIC INCENTIVE PROGRAMS [ALL POLLUTANTS]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : A LL S OURCE C ATEGORIES
C ONTROL M ETHODS : A LL A VAILABLE C ONTROL M ETHODS
E MISSIONS : I MPLEMENTATION OF T HIS C ONTROL M EASURE IS E XPECTED TO P ROMOTE AND C OMMERCIALIZE A DVANCED A IR P OLLUTION T ECHNOLOGIES

. C ONTROL C OST : T HE C OST E FFECTIVENESS OF T HIS C ONTROL M EASURE I S N OT D ETERMINED

. I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY This control measure is designed to enhance the District’s existing regulatory programs to maximize compliance flexibility, minimize compliance costs, and to promote the commercialization of advanced pollution control t echnologies. In concept, this control measure proposes to expand the existing trading market to allow broader trading of mobile and stationary source emission credits, develop pilot credit trading rules between mobile and stationary sources including potential credits for new source review, develop clean air investment funds and other market incentive approaches.


### Background In April 1995 the District conducted the Intercre dit Trading Study to assess the existing marketbased regulatory programs and to identify potentia l enhancements for cost-effective air quality solutions. After a series of public workshops a nd public meetings the District staff presented a white paper titled, “Intercredit Trading Study - Proposed Recommendations and Action Plan” to its Governing Board in March 1996. This paper id entified specific enhancements to the existing regulatory program that would provide additi onal compliance flexibility while promoting the commercialization of advanced pollution control technologies.
The 1997 AQMP included control measure FLX-01 fo rmerly titled, “Intercredit Trading.” The 1997 AQMP control measure was based on recomme ndations from the Intercredit Trading Study white paper and presented concepts for de veloping an universal trading market with stationary and mobile sources.
Over the past decade, the District has adopted a series of programs that incorporate a variety of different market incentive approaches such as emissions trading programs, mitigation fee programs, clean air investment programs, a nd averaging. Staff will continue to work collaboratively with EPA, ARB, industry and other interested parties to expand trading programs and address issues related to economic growth and compliance flexibility.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FLX-01

IV-100 

### Emissions Trading Programs Emissions trading programs include programs wher e emissions trading credits are generated by one source and used by another. Emission reduc tion credits are used in a variety of SCAQMD programs. Under Regulation XIII – New Source Review, emission reduction credits (ERCs) are used to offset emission increase from new and modified sources. Some Regulation XI – Source Specific Rules, Regulation XX – RECLAIM, and Rule 2202 allow the use of mobile source emission reduction credits (MSERCs) as a compliance alternative. MSERCs must be generated pursuant to an emission reduction protocol unde r Regulation XVI – Mobile Sources Credits.


### Mitigation Fee Programs The concept of the mitigation fee program is to allow sources to pay a specified dollar per pollutant fee in lieu of directly complying with an emission limit. The fee would be used to purchase emission reductions. The use of a mitig ation fee approach was introduced in Rule 1121 – Residential Gas-Fired Water Heaters. Under Rule 1121, water heater manufacturers can pay a mitigation fee of $2.70 per pound NO
x emission reductions that can be used in lieu of directly complying with the NO
x emission limits. The mitigation fee under Rule 1121 is temporary, and is allowed as an alternative to complying with an interim NO
x emission limit.
In the May 11, 2001 amendments to the Regula tion XX – RECLAIM, a Mitigation Fee Program was incorporated for power producing facilities. Under Rule 2020 – RECLAIM Reserve, power producing facilities that meet specified criteria can purchase NO
x emission reductions for $7.50 per pound of NO
x to meet their annual allocation requi rements. The SCAQMD would use the money to fund projects that will achieve the needed NO
x emission reductions.


### Air Quality Investment Programs The concept of the Air Quality Investment Progr am (AQIP) is based on sources paying a fee to the SCAQMD that is used to fund emission re duction projects. The emission reductions can then be used by facilities as an alternative to directly complying with specific emission reduction requirements.
The AQMD has three types of air quality inve stment programs, under Rule 2202 - On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options, Rule 2501 – Ai r Quality Investment Program (AQIP), and Rule 2020 – RECLAIM Reserve. Under Rule 2202, facilities have the option to pay into an AQIP to purchase emission reductions to meet sp ecified ridesharing requirements. The Rule2202 AQIP has funded a variety of mobile source emission reduction control strategies from onroad vehicles, off-road vehicles, and mari ne vessels. To date, the Rule 2202 AQIP has generated over 2,291 tons of NO x , 9,151 tons of CO, and 1,732 tons of VOC emission reductions.
The Rule 2501 AQIP is a broader AQIP where sources that are subject to Regulation IV and XI source specific requirements can purchase emissi on reductions generated from stationary and mobile sources as an alternative to directly complying with specific emission limits. Although there have been facilities that have requested to participate in the Rule 2501 AQIP, no emission reductions have been issued from this AQIP since there has been no pre-funding of emission reductions since the inception of the program and EPA has not approved Rule 2501.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FLX-01

IV-101 The Rule 2020 AQIP is a temporary AQIP of NO
x emission reductions for RECLAIM facilities that meet specific participation re quirements. Provided there are NO
x emission reductions available, certain RECLAIM facilities can pay $7.50 per pound of NO
x to meet their annual allocation requirements. The Rule 2020 AQIP will rely on mobile source emission reduction protocols under the pilot credit generation program as discussed in more detail below.


### Other Market Incentive Approaches Other types of market incentive approaches include averaging and banking. The concept of emissions averaging is based on averaging emissi ons to meet an overall emission limit. Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings includes a provisi on that allows manufacturers’ to average emissions from different coatings to comply with an overall emission limit. The concept of banking is based on saving emission credits generate d in one year for use in another year. EPA has included an averaging and banking approach as an alternative to complying with emission limits for marine vessel standards under 40 CF R Part 94. The averaging provision allows engine manufacturers’ to certify one or more engine families above the applicable emission standard provided the emissions increase is offs et by one or more families certified below the emission standard. The banking provision allows engine manufacturers’ to generate emission credits to bank for their future compliance use or another manufacturers’ use.


### Regulatory History In 2001, the AQMD adopted six mobile and area source pilot credit generation rules: Rule 1612.1 – Mobile Source Credit Generation Pilot Program; Rule 1631 – Pilot Credit Generation Program for Marine Vessels; Rule 1632 – P ilot Credit Generation Program for Hotelling Operations; Rule 1633 – Pilot Credit Generation Pr ogram for Truck/Trailer Refrigeration Units; Rule 1634 – Pilot Credit Generation Program fo r Truck Stops; and Rule 2507 – Pilot Credit Generation Program for Agricultural Pumps. NO x emission reductions generated from these pilot credit generation rules can be used in the RECLAIM program either directly or through the RECLAIM Reserve for the Mitigation Fee Program for power producing facilities or the Rule 2020 AQIP for specific RECLAIM facilities. All si x pilot credit generation rules have been submitted to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. Th e five pilot credit generation rules, Rules 1612.1, 1631, 1632, 1633, and 2507 have been approved by CARB and EPA. Rule 1634 is currently being reviewed by EPA.



### Economic Incentive Guidelines In January 2001, the EPA finalized their guidan ce document for “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs” (EIP). The EIP is designed to encourage cost-effective innovative approaches to achieving air pollu tion goals. The guidance document outlines economic incentive programs that states and lo cal areas may incorporate in their State Implementation Plans for meeting air quality standards.
The EIP outlines four main types of economic pr ograms: emissions trading programs, financial mechanism programs, clean air investment funds, and public information. The EIP also outlines key principles that must be incorporated in an economic incentive program to receive EPA approval such as the integrity of emission reduc tion credits, protection of health and welfare from use of emission credits, and assurance of an environmental benefit.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FLX-01

IV-102 

### Federal Clean Air Act Since 1970, the federal Clean Air Act has required that states adopt regulations designed to attain ambient air quality standards. The Act generally has allowed the states to choose the appropriate type and mix of control strategies used to achieve attainment. In 1977 and 1990 Congress amended the Act to specify certain emission control requirements that each state regulatory program must impose. Nevertheless, the basic concept that states may choose the appropriate type and mix of control strategies ha s been retained as long as the specific control requirements of the Act are met (Sections 110, 172, and 182). Thus in general, the federal Clean Air Act does not prohibit the SCAQMD fr om expanding or linking emissions trading programs. EPA has promulgated rules for economic incentive programs (EIPs) which either may or must be adopted by States for certain ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas upon the failure of States to submit an adequate showi ng that an applicable reasonable further progress (RFP) milestone has been met pursuant to CAA Section 182(g)(3) and (5). These rules require that EIPs be submitted to the EPA for approval as part of the SIP and that they contain provisions to ensure the following: (1) th e program will not interfere with other CAA requirements; (2) emission reductions credite d are quantifiable; (3) creditable emission reductions are consistent with SIP attainment and RFP demonstrations; (4) reductions are surplus to reductions required by, and credited t o, other SIP provisions in order to avoid doublecounting of reductions; (5) the program is enforceable by State and Federal authorities; and (6) all creditable emission reductions are permanent. (See 40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Sections 51.490 to 51.494 and 59 Federal Regulation (FR) 16690 et seq., April 7, 1994).



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL This control measure is a voluntary program to provide additional compliance flexibility to regulated sources in the Basin, provide incentives for the early installation and commercialization of advanced pollution cont rol technologies, and lower overall compliance costs. District pilot credit generation programs will be expanded to generate short-term credits for NSR purposes.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Implementation of this control measure is exp ected to accelerate emission reductions during the early years of the program through development and commercialization of advanced pollution control technologies, and produce a net air quality be nefit. Due to the voluntary nature of this control measure, potential emission reductions associated with the early introduction of advanced pollution control technologies cannot be quantified. As currently proposed, implementation of this control measure is not designed to result in direct emission reductions since emission reductions associated with credit generation activities would be offset by the use of the emission credits. Thus, although no dir ect emission reductions are anticipated, it is important to note that this control measure will be designed to ensure that the added compliance flexibility does not compromise the Basin’s ove rall progress towards achieving its air quality attainment goals.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FLX-01

IV-103 

### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS Compliance with the provisions of this c ontrol measure would be based on monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that have been established in existing source specific rules and regulations. In addition, compliance w ould be verified through inspections and other recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Emissions quantification protocols will establish the appropriate test methods that applicable source categories will be required to use when generating and using emission credits under this program.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost effectiveness of this control measure ha s not yet been determined. Since this measure is voluntary, implementation of this control meas ure is expected to reduce the overall cost of compliance with District rules and regulations. Implementation of this control measure is expected to maximize trading opportunities and provide sources with more cost-effective compliance methods. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact associated with implementing this control measure and will provide cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to regulate emissions from stationary sources.



### REFERENCES South Coast Air Quality Management Distri ct. “Intercredit Trading Study. Proposed Recommendations and Action Plan.” January 1996.

## GROUP 7 DISTRICT’S MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL MEASURESFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-05

IV-104 

### MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL SOURCES [NO X 

### ]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : F EDERAL S OURCES (A IRCRAFT , S HIPS , T RAINS , O THER P REEMPTED S OURCES )
C ONTROL M ETHODS : M ITIGATION F EE P ROGRAM
E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED
C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD, U.S. EPA; P OSSIBLY R EQUIRING A DDITIONAL L EGISLATION 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background The regulation of emissions from ships, aircra ft, trains, and off-road farm and construction equipment less than 175 horsepower (HP) is under federal jurisdiction. Emissions from these federal sources continue to represent a signi ficant and increasing portion of the emissions inventory in the South Coast Air Basin. Recent emissions inventory studies and forecasts for aircraft, marine vessels, and locomotives indicate that activity and emissions from these sources are increasing.

The U.S. EPA has indicated that it would be difficult to adopt national rules which are sufficiently stringent enough to achieve the em issions reductions anticipated from federal sources necessary for the South Coast Air Basin in time to attain the federal ozone standard. Without adequate controls of these sources , however, the emissions reduction burden would have to be shifted to other stationary and m obile sources that have been regulated for many years, and attainment of the ozone standard may not be possible.


### Regulatory History Locomotive, Aircraft, and Ships In 1998, U.S. EPA adopted regula tions affecting all new or remanufactured locomotives after January 1, 2000. Specific emission standards f ound in 40CFR Part 92 depend on the date of manufacturer or remanufacture and the type of duty-cycle, but may go as low as 5.5 g/bhp-hr NO x (Tier 2) and 0.2 g/bhp-hr PM (Tier 2) for lin e-haul locomotives manufactured on or after January 1, 2005.
In addition, Measure M14 – National Emission Standards for Locomotives in the 1997 AQMP required low-emission locomotives to completely replace existing locomotives in the Basin by 2010. Control Measure #97M14 applied to all types of locomotives and assumed that U.S. EPA would develop a two-tiered national NO x emission standard. In adopting measure M14, ARB assumed that by 2010, locomotive fleets in the Basin will be required to emit a fleet-wide average of no more than the U.S. EPA’s establis hed Tier 2 emission level. To this end, ARBFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-05

IV-105 staff developed a Memorandum of Mutual U nderstandings and Agreements (Memorandum) with the California Railroads and the U.S. EPA that was signed in July 1998. The Memorandum includes provisions for early intr oduction of clean locomotives in the Basin, which will meet the fleet-wide average target by 2010.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) established NO x standards in 1997 that apply to marine vessel engines over 130 kW installed on new vessels. IMO standards do not become enforceable until ratified by at least 15 countries. This has not happened yet, and the U.S. is one of the countries that has not ratified the standa rds. U.S. EPA adopted emission standards for commercial marine vessels in 1999 (40CFR Part 94). These standards primarily apply to commercial harbor craft since the large engine s (i.e., 30 liters per cylinder) used by ocean-going ships are not covered by Part 94. However, th e U.S. EPA is currently proposing additional emission standards for these large engines which are expected to be adopted in 2003. However, the net emission benefit associated with these regulations is expected to be minimal in 2010 because of their lack of stringency and the slow turnover rate of engines.
Aircraft emissions are regulated by the Intern ational Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and U.S. EPA. Current standards (HC, NO x , smoke) are based on engine thrust and vary depending on the engine pressure ratio. These standards ar e also not expected to achieve any significant reductions by 2010. Currently, military aircraft are exempt from these engine standards. The U.S. EPA and FAA have jointly sponsored a nati onal stakeholder group whose goal is to define emission reduction targets for air carriers beyond 2010 (CARB, 2002).

California SIP The 1990 CAA Amendments required California to submit by November 1994 a SIP revision demonstrating that the South Coast Air Basi n would attain the NAAQS for ozone by 2010, the statutory deadline for “extreme” ozone nonattainment areas. The AQMD and CARB in the 1994 SIP submittal concluded that it would be necessary for U.S. EPA to adopt specific measures regulating sources of pollution subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction, such as trains, ships, and aircraft. In approving the state’s SIP submittal, U.S. EPA agree d, stating “ . . . U.S. EPA recognizes that massive further reductions ar e needed for attainment in the South Coast and that attainment may be either very costly and disruptive or impossible if further reductions are not achieved from national and internati onal sources.” 62 Federal Register 1149, 1152-1153 (January 8, 1997).
U.S. EPA proposed to approve the 1994 SIP, stati ng: “While U.S. EPA does not believe that the CAA authorizes a state to assign responsibility to the Federal government for meeting SIP requirements, the Agency agrees that it has both the authority and responsibility under the Act for regulating certain national sources of air pollution.” 61 Federal Register 10920, 10936 (March 18, 1996). Therefore, U. S. EPA in approving the 1994 SIP made a commitment, “enforceable by citizens,” to undergo a described “consultative process,” and to adopt the “controls determined by that process to be appr opriate” for U.S. EPA. (62 Federal Register p. 1153.) U.S. EPA further explained, “EPA has authority to commit itself to promulgate additional Federal measures determined through the consultative process to be appropriate, under CAA §301.” (Id., p. 1154.)Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-05

IV-106 At the same time, U.S. EPA required Californi a to submit “before EPA’s final action on the South Coast plan, an enforceable commitment to submit a revised South Coast attainment demonstration and gap-filling State or local cont rol measures, if needed, after the consultative process.” (61 Federal Regist er, p. 10923.) CARB submitted such a commitment, which U.S. EPA approved. (62 Federal Register, p. 1153.) Th e net result of U.S. EPA’s action was that California (through CARB) ultimately committed to taking all measures needed to attain the NAAQS, no matter how disruptive or infeasible, if U.S. EPA did not determine sufficient measures to be “appropriate” for federal action.
The existing regulations on federal sources are not expected to result in significant emission reductions prior to 2010. As the AQMD and CARB prepare to update the South Coast SIP in 2003, it is anticipated that additional reductions would be necessary from federally regulated sources. Without an assurance that U.S. EPA will identify and commit to additional regulations and considering the attainment deadlines of 2006 for PM10 and 2010 for ozone, the District is proposing Control Measure FSS-05 to ensure fede ral sources contribute their fair share to achieving federal ambient air quality standards.
The District is currently seeking to obtain broade r legal authority to regulate mobile sources to the extent feasible (e.g., retrofit controls, mitigation fees).



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL As an alternative to stringent national rules a nd to achieve a fair share reduction commitment by federal sources to address unique local needs, this control measure proposes a mitigation fee program for federal sources. The program is to be adopted by U.S. EPA and the mitigation fee to be paid by federal sources through EPA rulemaki ng and/or U.S. EPA grants to the District. The District will use the funds collected to solicit proposals from both federal and non-federal sources to achieve equivalent reductions for SIP purposes. Under this control measure, U.S. EPA would be responsible for reducing NO x emissions from federal sources to the level set forth in the 1999 Amendment to the Ozone SIP fo r the South Coast Air Basin. The mitigation fee is assumed to be comparable to mobile source NO x control technologies.
The program would be similar to the District ’s Emission Mitigation Fee Program for Power Producing Facilities (Regulation XX - RECLAIM) a nd to the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program. The RECLAIM Emission Mitigation Fee Program is a program where power producing facilities that exceed annual allocations and meet specified applicability requirements in Rule 2004 pay a participation fee to the District for generation of NO x emission reductions by the District to mitigate emissi on exceedances. The statewide Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Progr am provides grants to offset the incremental cost of projects that reduce emissions of NO x from covered sources in California.
Off-road equipment and vehicle categories subj ect to Control Measures FSS-05 and FSS-07 will be further evaluated during rule development to ensure that the same categories are not subject to multiple requirements and to identify the most feasible control strategy for each source category (e.g., reduction controls, mitigation f ee) as a means of preventing any overlaps between these measures.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-05

IV-107 Emission fee rates imposed on federal sources w ill be established based on specific criteria, including but limited to: type of federal s ource, emissions inventory, potential reduction opportunities, control cost, and proximity to Envi ronmental Justice (EJ) areas. In addition, a source specific metric for determining a common un it of activity measurements could be used as a basis for establishing the fee rate. In order to en sure that the fee rate is properly adjusted from year to year, a monitoring and reporting pro cedure would be implemented to indicate any changes in the activity measurements or emissi on rates that would aff ect the fee charged to federal sources. Collected fees would be transferred to a special account established for the purposes of funding emission-reduction projects so that program performance can be monitored.
Selection of particular projects to be funded by the Mitigation Fee Program for federal sources would have to adhere to an implementation pr otocol approved by the Governing Board. This protocol will be developed through selective par ticipation and will include specific selection criteria, including but not limited to: quantif iable emission benefits, emission reduction potential, cost-effectiveness, and proximity to a ffected areas (e.g., EJ areas). Projects to be funded would have to be approved by the District’s Governing Board.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION The 2010 baseline inventory for ships, aircraft, a nd trains is estimated to be approximately 102 tons of NO x per day which is approximately 40 per cent of the off-road mobile source 2010 inventory and 14 percent of the total 2010 NO x inventory in the Basin. To reduce emissions from these sources to the 2010 level proj ected in the 1997 AQMP (i.e., 63 tons of NO x per day) would require a 38 percent reduction from the 2010 baseline. It should be noted that these inventory and emission reduction values do not account for other preempted federal sources (e.g., off-road farm and construction equipment less than 175 HP) which may also be expected to be targeted by this control measure.



### TEST METHODS The appropriate test method(s) would depend on the specific NO x emission reduction projects undertaken.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact a ssociated with implementing this control measure and will provide cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority under the Lewis Pr esley Air Quality Management Act to collect fees based on emissions. However, implementation of this control measure may require additional legislation unless implemented by U.S. EPA. U.S. EPA would appropriate funding or enable collection of monies in lieu of contro l. The District would then fund cost-effective reduction projects with the collected funds. A complete description on how a mitigation fee program for federal sources would be implemented is beyond the scope of this control measure.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-05

IV-108 

### REFERENCES ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Marine Vessels Emissions Inventory(Update to 1996 Report: Marine Vessel Inventory and control Strategy), Final Report, September 1999.
CARB, Proposed Clean Air Plan , March 2002.
California Health and Safety Code §44280
Federal Register: Vol. 61, No. 53, pa ges 10920, 10923, and 10936, March 18, 1996 (Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan s; California – Ozone. Notice of proposed rulemaking.)
Federal Register: Vol. 62, No. 5, page s 1149, 1152 - 1154, January 8, 1997 (Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California –Ozone. Final Rule.)
Federal Register: Vol. 64, No. 141 pa ges 39923 - 39927, July 23, 1999 (Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; California –South Coast. Final Rule.)Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-06

IV-109 

### FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM IN-USE OFF-ROAD VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT [ALL]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : O FF -R OAD V EHICLES AMD E QUIPMENT
C ONTROL M ETHODS : R ETROFIT OF E XISTING F LEETS U SING A DD

- ON C ONTROLS ( E

. G ., PM T RAPS , C ATALYSTS , ETC .), O PERATIONAL C ONTROLS SUCH AS I DLING R ESTRICTIONS , U SE OF E MULSIFIED AND B IO

- DIESEL FUELS , AND L IMITING H OURS OF O PERATION

. E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):

A NNUAL A VERAGE 1997 2006 2010 VOC I NVENTORY 119.6 82.9 69.4 VOC R EDUCTION TBD TBD VOC R EMAINING TBD TBD

NO X I NVENTORY 198.9 168.5 136.7 NO X R EDUCTION TBD TBD NO X R EMAINING TBD TBD

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 1997 2006 2010
VOC I NVENTORY 149.1 102.6 83.7 VOC R EDUCTION TBD TBD VOC R EMAINING TBD TBD
NO X I NVENTORY 203.5 175.7 143.6 NO X R EDUCTION TBD TBD NO X R EMAINING TBD TBD

C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The purpose of this control measure is to seek further emission reductions from off-road vehicles and equipment where it is determined that additional emission reductions are necessary to meet the air quality goals of the 2003 AQMP.


### Background Off-road vehicles and equipment consist of a vari ety of sources such as construction equipment, small utility engines, lawn and garden equipmen t, off-road recreational vehicles (e.g., ATVs), recreational marine (e.g., personal watercraft, outboard motors) and other non-highway mobile equipment.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-06

IV-110 

### Regulatory History The regulation of emissions from off-road vehicles and equipment is traditionally the responsibility of CARB and U.S. EPA. Both CA RB and U.S. EPA have set emission standards for new off-road compression- and spark-ignited engines used in a variety of vehicles and equipment. However, neither CARB nor U.S. EP A have set requirements for in-use fleets of existing off-road vehicles or equipment. As part of the 2003 AQMP development process, CARB has proposed a variety of strategies to reduce the emissions from in-use fleets of exis ting off-road vehicles and equipment. These include Control Measure OFF-RD CI-2 – Pursue Approaches to Clean-Up the Existing HeavyDuty Off-Road Fleet, OFF-RD LSI-2 – Clean-Up Existing Off-Road Gas Equipment Through Retrofit Controls, OFF-RD LSI-3 – Require New Forklift Purchase and Forklift Rentals to be Electric, and MARINE-4 – Pursue Approach es to Reduce Land-Based Port Emissions. However, implementation of these measures is e xpected to provide emission reductions of up to 3.6 tons per day of VOC and 3.9 tons per day of NO x . In 2000 and 2001, the District adopted several on-ro ad vehicle fleet rules which require public fleet operators operating in the Basin to acqui re low-emitting gasoline or alternative-fuel vehicles to reduce air toxic and criteria emissions when procuring or leasing new fleet vehicles. In addition, the District is proposing to a dopt proposed Rule 1198 – Off-Road Intermodal Equipment which would specify retrofit technol ogies and operational controls for off-road equipment (e.g., yard hostlers) used at intermodal facilities.
Although CARB and U.S. EPA have adopted stringent new off-road engine emission standards, due to the slow engine turn-over rate, signi ficant emissions remain from in-use engines manufactured many years ago.
The District is currently seeking to obtain broade r legal authority to regulate mobile sources to the extent feasible (e.g., retrofit controls, mitigation fees).



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL This control measure proposes that the Distri ct develop requirements for in-use off-road vehicles and equipment within the district’s juri sdiction and authority. The District will target existing off-road vehicles and equipment where additional emission reductions are feasible.
This control measure will be implemented in tw o phases. The first phase will identify vehicle and equipment categories for which retrofit technol ogies and operational controls can be applied in the most expeditiously timeframe possible. Control methods that will be considered for existing off-road vehicles and equipment include operational controls such as idling restrictions, use of emulsified and bio-diesel fuels, and retr ofits using add-on controls. Retrofit technologies that will be considered for off-road applica tions include diesel particulate filters and NO x reduction catalysts. Cleaire offers the “Longview system” which consists of a lean NO x catalyst and catalyzed passive diesel particulate filter wh ich has been CARB verified for on-road retrofit applications to reduce NO x and PM that may be applicable to some off-road applications in the future. The second phase will be to develop pr ograms for specific types of off-road vehicles and equipment making use of the control methods developed in the first phase.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-06

IV-111 Off-road equipment and vehicle categories subj ect to Control Measures FSS-06 and FSS-07 will be further evaluated during rule development to ensure that the same categories are not subject to multiple requirements and to identify the most feasible control strategy for each source category (e.g., reduction controls, mitigation f ee) as a means of preventing any overlaps between these measures.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Off-road vehicles and equipment account for appr oximately 17 percent (227 tons per day) of the VOC and NO x emissions in the Basin in 2010. The expected emission reductions for this control measure have not been determined and would depend on the number and type of sources affected and the control methods used.



### TEST METHODS The appropriate test method(s) would depend on the specific categories of equipment and vehicles targeted for further emission reductions.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact a ssociated with implementing this control measure and will provide cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority under the Californi a Health and Safety Code to regulate in-use off-road vehicles and equipment. However, im plementation of this control measure may require cooperation of CARB, which also has such authority.



### REFERENCES CARB, Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy fo r the California State Implementation Plan, May 2003.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-07

IV-112 

### EMISSION FEE PROGRAM FOR PORT-RELATED MOBILE SOURCES [ALL POLLUTANTS]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : P ORT -R ELATED M OBILE S OURCES (e.g., S HIPS , T RAINS , T RUCKS , O FF -R OAD E QUIPMENT )
C ONTROL M ETHODS : E MISSION F EE P ROGRAM
E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): T O B E D ETERMINED
C ONTROL C OST : T O B E D ETERMINED
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD, P OSSIBLY R EQUIRING A DDITIONAL L EGISLATION 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background Emissions from port-related mobile sources (e.g., sh ips, trains, trucks, and off-road equipment) continue to represent a significant and increas ing portion of the emissions inventory in the South Coast Air Basin, adversely affecting not onl y the local port area, but also the regional air quality of the Basin. The purpose of this cont rol measure is to establish an emission fee program to mitigate impacts associated with increasing port-related mobile source emissions.


### Regulatory History The regulation of emissions from mobile port-related emission sources is traditionally the responsibility of CARB and U.S. EPA. Specifi cally, ships, trains, trucks, and off-road equipment are each subject to specific emission standards pursuant to state and/or federal requirements. The standards, primarily affec ting new units, vary in stringency and compliance dates.
In 2000 and 2001, the District adopted several on-ro ad vehicle fleet rules which require public fleet operators operating in the Basin to acqui re low-emitting gasoline or alternative-fuel vehicles to reduce air toxic and criteria emissions when procuring or leasing new fleet vehicles. In addition, the District is in the proce ss of developing proposed Rule 1198 – Off-Road Intermodal Equipment, which is aimed at reduc ing emissions from intermodal equipment (i.e., yard hostlers) used at ports, railroad switching yards and distribution centers.
The District has the authority to regulate indir ect, area-wide and fleet sources as set forth under California Health and Safety Code Sections 40440, 40447.5, 40716 and 40522.5. Although there are restrictions in state and federal law regarding the District’s authority to directly regulate emissions from nonroad sources through es tablishing emissions standards, the District has the authority to adopt in use restrictions on these sources. The District can require a permit, impose a limitation on the number of hours a source can operate and cap emissions, among other things. Therefore, it would be reasonable for the District to establish a fee program to support the costs of in-use programs or to implem ent alternatives to those measures. Likewise, the District may adopt fleet rules and impose indi rect source regulations and fees, and therefore may establish fee programs to support or substitute for those programs.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-07

IV-113 The District is currently seeking to obtain broade r legal authority to regulate mobile sources to the extent feasible (e.g., retrofit controls, mitigation fees).



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL As an alternative to establishing more stringent standards, this control measure proposes an emissions fee program for port-related mobile sour ces. Under this control measure, the District would establish an emission fee program for port-re lated vehicles and equipment, such as ships, trains, trucks, and off-road equipment. The program will potentially apply to fleet operators of trucks and off-road equipment as well as railroa ds and shipping companies. The District will use the monies collected from the program to implement projects with a focus to achieve emission reductions from in-use vehicles/engines. When developing this control measure, staff will consider setting emission control requireme nts under the District’s authority as an alternative to assessing the emission fee.
Off-road equipment and vehicle categories subj ect to Control Measures FSS-05 and FSS-07 will be further evaluated during rule development to ensure that the same categories are not subject to multiple requirements and to identify the most feasible control strategy for each source category (e.g., reduction controls, mitigation f ee) as a means of preventing any overlaps between these measures.

Establishment of the fee rate would be s ource specific and would be based on the costs associated with reducing the emissions from port -related sources to a pre-determined level. This level would be established for each sp ecific source (e.g., ships propulsion and auxiliary engines, off-road material handling equipment) and be based on the lowest achievable emission level commercially available. Fees would not have to be paid for any source or fleet that met the pre-determined emission level. Emission f ee rates imposed on port-related mobile sources will also be established based on additional specific criteria, including but limited to: type of source, emissions inventory, and potential re duction opportunities. In addition, a source specific metric for determining a common unit of activity measurements could be used as a basis for establishing the fee rate. In order to ensure that the fee rate is properly adjusted from year to year, a monitoring and reporting pro cedure would be implemented to indicate any changes in the activity measurements or emission rates that would affect the fee charged to portrelated mobile sources. Collected fees would be transferred to a special account established for the purposes of funding emission-reduction projects so that no co-mingling of fees would occur.
Selection of particular projects to be funded by the Mitigation Fee Program for federal sources would have to adhere to an implementation pr otocol approved by the Governing Board. This protocol will be developed through selective pa rticipation and will include specific selection criteria, including but not limited to: quantif iable emission benefits, emission reduction potential, cost-effectiveness, and proximity to a ffected areas (e.g., EJ area s). Projects to be funded would have to be approved by the District’s Governing Board.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Emission reductions are being assessed at this tim e, and will be incorporated in the final 2003 AQMP if feasible.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-07

IV-114 

### RULE COMPLIANCE Compliance with this control measure would depend on the type of controls implemented.



### TEST METHODS The appropriate test method(s) would depe nd on the specific emission reduction projects undertaken.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact a ssociated with implementing this control measure and will provide cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority under the Lewis Pr esley Air Quality Management Act to collect fees based on emissions; however, further clarifica tion on the District’s authority to collect fees from the sources subject to this control measur e is necessary. Implementation of this control measure may require additional legislation.

## GROUP 8 DISTRICT’S LONG-TERM CONTROL MEASUREFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003LTM-ALL

IV-115 

### LONG-TERM CONTROL MEASURE [VOC]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : M ISCELLANEOUS I NDUSTRIAL C OATINGS AND S OLVENT C ATEGORIES , F UGITIVE E MISSION S OURCES , M ISCELLANEOUS I NDUSTRIAL P ROCESS O PERATIONS , AND OTHER D ISTRICT S TATIONARY AND A REA S OURCES OF VOC E MISSIONS

C ONTROL M ETHODS : D EVELOPMENT AND I MPLEMENTATION OF C ONTROL S TRATEGIES I NCLUDING , B UT N OT L IMITED T O , N EAR -Z ERO OR Z ERO -VOC C OATING AND S OLVENT F ORMULATIONS , A DD -O N C ONTROLS , I MPROVED I NSPECTIONS AND M AINTENANCE P ROGRAMS , AND P ROCESS C HANGES

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): A

NNUAL A VERAGE 1997 2006 2010 VOC I NVENTORY 297.2 190.0 190.2 VOC R EDUCTION 0.0 28.7 VOC R EMAINING 190.0 161.5
S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 1997 2006 2010 VOC I NVENTORY 322.9 204.5 204.8 VOC R EDUCTION 0.0 31.0 VOC R EMAINING 204.5 173.8

C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED

I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY

This control measure seeks to achieve additiona l emission reductions from the source categories affected by the short-term control measures as well as all other stationary and area sources of VOC emissions under the District’s jurisdiction, except consumer products and pesticides.


### Background After implementation of its proposed short-term measures, the District would be exceeding its emission target in the 1997/99 SIP by 59 tons per day of VOC; however , in view of the magnitude of the reductions required for attainment demonstration, the District is also proposing a long-term measure in addition to the short-term (defined) measures to achieve additional VOC reductions from stationary sources. For the 2003 AQMP, the District is committed to achieve an overall 31 tons per day of VOC reductions based on implementation of the long-term strategy.
The District's long-term strategy is made up of Tier I and Tier II components. Under the Tier I long-term strategy, the reduction target is 11 tons per day of VOC with the actual reductionsFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003LTM-ALL

IV-116 dependent on technology assessments to be performed as part of the rule development process. The Tier I long-term control measure has an adoption date between 2005 and 2007 and implementation date between 2007 and 2009, and targets the source categories including, but not limited to, those in the following control measures:

• CTS-10 – Miscellaneous Industrial Coatings and Solvent Operations (VOC)

• FUG-05 – Emission Reductions from Fugitive Sources (VOC)

• PRC-07 – Industrial Process Operations (VOC)

The reduction target for Tier II long-term stra tegy is 20 tons per day of VOC reductions in 2010. The reduction commitment for both Tier I a nd Tier II long-term strategy represents the uncertainty in current technology assessment for s hort-term measures. The District will seek maximum feasible reductions during rule deve lopment for each short-term measure. Any excess reductions achieved beyond the short-term commitment will be credited toward the Tier I long-term commitment. The Tier II long-term control strategy has an adoption date between 2006 and 2008 and implementation date between 2008 and 2010, and would target all stationary source categories for which feasible reductions can be identified.


### Regulatory History Currently, the District has a number of specific rules for the various source categories affected by this control measure. The source categorie s under this control measure represent a wide variety of industrial coating and solvent operati ons and miscellaneous industrial processes and fugitive emission sources. The type of ope ration, industry, and size of the source would determine which rule(s) or regulation(s) that th ese sources would be regulated under. A more detailed discussion of the rules and regulations effecting these sources can be found in the control measure summary for each short-term control measure affected by this control measure.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL Under this control measure, the District is committed to continue actively seeking cost-effective and technically feasible control measures. On ce these measures are identified, they will be adopted and implemented as early as prac tical while meeting all public notification requirements.
In order to achieve the District’s long-term emission reduction commitment, the process to identify future control strategies will consist of several mechanisms:
(1) Technical Subcommittee of the AQMP Advisory Group Because of the significant emission reductions required for attainment demonstration, a Technical Subcommittee was establishe d under the District’s AQMP Advisory Group in April 2003 to explore additiona l control technologies and innovative approaches to achieve further reductions beyond the defined control measures and reduce the size of the “black box”. A prelim inary list of potential control strategies identified by this Subcommittee is incl uded in the Section entitled, "Suggested Strategies by AQMP Advisory Technical Subc ommittee" in this chapter. Additional control strategies will be further explor ed and developed through this SubcommitteeFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003LTM-ALL

IV-117 in the future. Control strategies that i nvolve mobile sources or consumer products will be further coordinated with CARB and U. S. EPA. To assist in identifying new control strategies, the Subcommittee may also be expanded to include additional technical experts on an as needed basis.
(2) Annual Technology Assessment Workshops The District will conduct annual technology a ssessment workshops with participation from broader audience including consultants, technical experts, and other interested parties to identify the latest technology improvements and process changes which could lead to implementation of cost-effectiv eness control strategies to further reduce VOC emissions. Potential control methods will include, but are not limited to nearzero or zero-VOC coating and solvent fo rmulations and technologies (e.g., waterbased, UV/EB technologies, powder coatings), add-on controls, improved inspections and maintenance programs, and process modifications. Manufacturing processes identified through the enforcement of sta tionary source rules such as Rule 442 – Usage of Solvents, will also be used to identify potential control strategies.
(3) Emissions Inventory Updates/Studies As part of the effort in identifying new source categories for potential controls, specific emission studies will be conducted to refine emission inventories. Any emission studies conducted that resulted in permanent emission reductions (relative to 2003 AQMP inventory) due to changes in inventory methodology or emission factor update, will be credited toward the District’s SIP commitment for long-term measures. These changes will be appr oved by the AQMD Governing Board at a public meeting to allow public review and comments. Also, studies conducted as part of implementing the annual Emissions Reporting (AER) Program (i.e., reviewing/auditing AERs filings from larg e facilities) will be used to identify any new emission reduction strategies voluntarily implemented by facilities (for reducing annual emission fees) which may exceed th e limits under the District’s existing regulations



### . (4) VOC Reactivity Studies
Studies conducted to evaluate the reac tivity of VOC compounds such as those proposed under the District’s Three-Year Advanced Pollution Research Plan will provide a basis for establishing control stra tegies and pilot projects that substitute low-reactive VOCs for highly reactive VOCs. These studies will lend support to the possibility of using low-reactivity-based products for incorporation into future rule development for further VOC reductions.
(5) Periodic BACT Evaluations BACT evaluations will be conducted periodica lly to identify new control strategies that may result from add-on controls or process changes for existing sources.
New control measures identified through any of th e above five mechanisms will be reported to the Governing Board in December of every year, as part of the District’s Annual Rule andFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003LTM-ALL

IV-118 Control Measure Forecast Report. This report w ill also provide a preliminary estimate of the expected emission reductions from each newly id entified measure along with the proposed rule adoption calendar. Furthermore, in January of each year, District staff will provide a summary of the emission reductions achieved through adopti on of the control measures by the Governing Board in the previous year(s). The reductions achieved in aggregate would then be used to first satisfy the District’s short-term commitment, if there is a shortfall, otherwise the long-term SIP commitment and any excess reductions achieved w ill be contributed to the State/federal longterm reduction goal. The existing rule development outreach efforts such as public workshops, stakeholder working group meetings, or public consu ltation meetings will continue to be used to solicit public input.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION The estimated emissions inventory and emission reductions associated with source categories under the District’s jurisdiction are summarized in the Control Measure Summary.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Rule compliance would be similar to those discu ssed in the control measure summaries for each of the individual control measures referred to in this control measure.



### TEST METHODS

Test methods will include the test methods iden tified in the control measure write-up for CM #2003CTS-10, CM #2003FUG-05, and CM #2003PRC-07 as well as any other methods deemed applicable for sources identified as part of the Tier II analysis.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been specifically determined. The District will continue to analyze the potential co st impact associated with implementing this control measure and will provide specific cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY/SCHEDULE The District has authority to regulate VOC emissi ons from all stationary point and area sources under its jurisdiction, excluding consumer products and pesticides. The District began its solicitation of additional control concepts through the 2003 AQMP’s public meetings and will consult with technical experts in the field peri odically to identify new control measures. The District’s VOC emission reduction commitment by y ear for the long-term control measures is presented in Table 2 of this appendix.

## GROUP 9 TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY BUDGET BACKSTOP MEASUREFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003TCB-01

IV-119 

### TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY BUDGET BACKSTOP MEASURE [PM10]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : A LL T RANSPORTATION

- RELATED PM10 S OURCES

C ONTROL M ETHODS : W ATERING , C HEMICAL S TABILIZATION , P AVING , R EVEGETATION , T RACK -O UT C ONTROL , C ONSTRUCTION P ROJECT S IGNAGE ; S WEEPING ; VMT R EDUCTION S TRATEGIES ; M OTOR V EHICLE E MISSION C ONTROLS OR O THER S TRATEGIES

E MISSIONS ( TONS /D AY ): 9 TONS / DAY IN 2020, 16 TONS / DAY IN 2030

C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED

I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD, SCAG, CARB 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background After the attainment year (i.e., 2006), additi onal PM10 reductions appear to be necessary because current projections of growth in trans portation-related emissions indicate that they will exceed the emission budget during the later out y ears. Further reductions could come from additional controls on primary PM10 sources such as on-road transportation-related fugitive dust sources and motor vehicles.


### Regulatory History Based on CAA requirements and available gui dance (U.S. EPA, 1992), the AQMD adopted Best Available Control Measure (BACM) require ments for fugitive dust sources in 1997. These requirements are contained in AQMD Rules 403 (Fugitive Dust) and 1186 (PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestoc k Operations). The 2003 AQMP includes Control Measures BCM-07 and BCM-08, which seek add itional reductions from fugitive dust sources and aggregate and cement manufacturing operati ons. As part of the 2003 AQMP, CARB also has committed to a series of motor vehicle em ission reduction measures. In addition, SCAG has committed to transportation control measures, listed in TCM-01.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL After taking into account source contribution, grow th projections, and implementation status of the 2003 AQMP, one or more of the following cont rols would be implemented to achieve the following reductions from transportation-related primary PM10: 9 tpd in 2020 and 16 tpd in 2030. A review of existing AQMD BACM regulations is proposed to consider enhancements that would further reduce PM10 emissions from paved and unpaved road entrained fugitive dust sources as well as road construction emissions. These enhancements would be based on those described in BCM-07, such as more stringent tr ack-out control. Other potential AQMD controlFinal Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003TCB-01

IV-120 strategies for transportation sources include a dditional road paving, chemical stabilization or sweeping. Motor vehicles are a source of pr imary PM10. Concurrent PM10 reductions for motor vehicle controls (e.g., particulate traps) a ssociated with CARB’s control measures in the Plan could reduce those emissions. In addition, any reductions from CARB’s future regulations can also be credited toward the reduction co mmitments in this measure after adoption by CARB. Certain PM10 emissions, such as entr ained road dust and tailpipe emissions, are a function of VMT. VMT reduction strategies by SCAG could reduce those emissions. This control measure would be adopted by 2019 and 2029, to be implemented no later than 2020 and 2030, respectively.
Before 2020 and 2030, AQMD may review the prim ary and secondary PM10 emission levels needed to maintain the federal PM10 NAAQS. Based on these reassessments, substitute measures may be developed, adopted, and submitte d that would achieve a total of 9 tpd or 16 tpd of PM10 emissions in 2020 or 2030, respectivel y, or some other amount consistent with a revised attainment analysis, if such an analysis is adopted and submitted as a SIP revision. The new set of substitute SIP measures would then replace or modify the commitments above. Future SIP revisions will also reflect update s to the transportation-related primary PM10 emission inventory (i.e., emission f actors, methodology, VMT forecast).



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION For more traditional air pollution sources, such as point sources, emissions reductions are calculated by multiplying the baseline emissions by the effectiveness of a given control technology (e.g., selective catalytic reduction). For non-traditional air pollution sources, such as fugitive dust, emissions reductions calculations are more difficult because the level of control necessary to comply will vary gr eatly due to site-specific conditions. At this time, it is not possible to quantify precise emissions reductions that would be needed for this control measure. However, it is anticipated that no greater than 9 tons per day and 16 tons per day of PM10 in 2020 and 2030, respectively, would need to be m itigated by additional reductions. Requiring the most stringent control options is expected, however, to result in a reduction in source emissions in later years. The level of emissi on reductions for this measure may be amended in the future, if a different amount of reductions is determined to be needed to offset growth in emissions from transportation-related source categories.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Compliance with this control measure would be achieved through periodic site visits, response to public complaints, source tests, and agency reports.



### TEST METHODS

Methods to measure PM10 emissions will follo w U.S. EPA or approved AQMD guidelines or test methods. Alternate guidelines may be use d, provided the measures are first approved by the U.S. EPA, CARB, and the AQMD.Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003TCB-01

IV-121 

### COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not been determined. The AQMD will continue to analyze the potential cost impact s associated with implementing this control measure and will provide cost effectiveness info rmation, as it becomes available. Efforts will be made to implement the most cost-effective measures first.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The AQMD has the authority to adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards unde r Health and Safety Code Section 40460 and 40440(a). CARB has the authority to adopt and enforce motor vehicle rules and regulations. SCAG has the authority to develop and implement transportation control measures.
For the purpose of this control measure, AQM D will be responsible for developing fugitive dust-related rules. SCAG will be responsible for achieving PM10 emission reductions achieved through its Regional Transportation Plan and Transportation Control Measures. Emission reductions from on-road mobile source regulati ons may be credited towards this measure upon adoption of such regulations by CARB.

## SECTION 2 CONTINGENCY MEASURESFinal Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures

IV-122 

### INTRODUCTION This appendix contains the c ontingency control measures for the 2003 AQMP. Both the state and federal Clean Air Acts require that the AQMP contain contingency measures in the event that the District fails to either achieve inte rim emission reduction goals or maintain adequate progress towards attain ment of ambient air quality standards.
The expected progress in meeting the AQMP attainment goals, measured in terms of emission reductions, is verified through the annual auditing program called the Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) program. In the event the RFP shows that the implementation of the AQMP is not provi ding adequate progre ss and the interim emission reduction goals have not been met, the District must take action to bring forward measures that are scheduled for later adoption or implementation, or to implement certain “contingency” control measures. The contingency measures contained in this appendix are designed to en sure that an appropriate level of emission reductions progress continues to be made. In addition, these con tingency measures are control options that could be instituted in addition to, or in place of, the AQMP control

measures. 

### Contingency Measures The 2003 AQMP contains 3 con tingency control measures. Although implementation of these measures is expected to reduce emissions , there are issues that limit the viability of these measures as AQMP control measures at this time. Issues surrounding these measures include, but are not limited to th e availability of District resources to implement and enforce the measure, cost-effe ctiveness of the measure, potential adverse environmental impacts, potential economic impacts, effectiveness of emission reductions, and availability of methods to qua ntify emission reductions . Table 3 lists the contingency control measures and adoption/implementation i ssues associated with the measure. The responsibility to adopt and implement the meas ures falls on the District, ARB, and EPA.Final Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures

IV-123 

### TABLE 3 Contingency Control Measures

AQMP Measure Number Title Issues

CTY-1 Accelerated Implementation of Control Measures Resource Availability
CTY-4 Enhanced Oxygenated Fuel Content for CO Potential NO x Emission Increases
CTY-14 Emission Reductions from Miscellaneous Sources (Weed Abatement) Unquantified Emission Reductions



### FORMAT OF CONTROL MEASURES
Included in each control measur e description is a title, summary table, description of source category, proposed me thod of control, estimated emission reductions, rule compliance, test methods, cost effectiveness, and references. The type of information that can be found under each of these subheadings is described below.



### Control Measure Number Each control measure is identified by a control measure number (such as “CM #2003CTY-01”) located at the upper right hand co rner of every page. “CM #” is the abbreviation for “control measure number” a nd is immediately follo wed by the year of the AQMP revision (such as “2003” for 2003). The next designation represents the source category or control measure type;; fo r example “CTY” represents contingency

measure.


### Summary Table
Each measure contains a table that summari zes the measure and is designed to identify the key components of the contro l measure. The table contains a brief explanation of the source category, control met hod, emission reductions, control costs, and implementing agency. Although initial assessments to identify the potential magnitude of emission reductions and cost effectiveness of these measures has been conducted, fully quantified emission reductions and control cost are not included fo r Level I and II measures at this time. If these measures should under go rulemaking and as additi onal data and information becomes available, the emission reductions a nd cost effectiveness of these measure will further be assessed and fully quantified.Final Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures

IV-124 

### Information Contained in Measures Similar to the stationary sour ce control measures in Section I of this appendix, each of the measures contain the following sections:

• Description of Source Category provides an overall description of the source category, number of sources in the Basin, description of em ission sources, and regulatory history.

• Proposed Method of Control includes applicable emission control technologies, expected performance such as projected cont rol efficiency, and current applications.

• Emission Reductions and Cost Effectiveness: As previously indicated, emission reductions and control costs associated with the measures is not included in this appendix. As the more data and in formation becomes available regarding quantification of potential emission reducti ons, these measures will be updated.

• Rule Compliance and Test Methods refers to the applicable monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting re quirements envisioned to ensure compliance. The test method section refers to a ppropriate approved District, ARB, and EPA source test methods.

• Implementing Agency is the agencies responsible for implementing the control measure. Also included in this section is a description of any jurisdictional issues that may affect the contro l measures implementation.

## CONTINGENCY MEASURESFinal Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures CM #2003CTY-01

IV-125 

### ACCELERATED IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROL MEASURES [ALL POLLUTANTS]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : S TATIONARY S OURCE C ONTROL M EASURES
C ONTROL M ETHODS : A LL A VAILABLE C ONTROL M ETHODS
E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED (S EE E MISSIONS R EDUCTION S ECTION )
C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : SCAQMD, ARB, DPR, L OCAL G OVERNMENT 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background Stationary source emission reduction measures rely on all available control technologies and are proposed to be implemented between 2003 and 2010. The 2003 AQMP includes 25 control measures for stationary and mobile sources as identified in Appendix IV , Section I Stationary Source Control Measures. The intent of this contingency control measure is to accelerate the starting implementation schedule of those measur es having an implementation date of 2004 or later. There are 15 stationary or mobile source control measures that have implementation dates of 2004 and beyond.


### Regulatory History The AQMP has historically established a schedul e whereby proposed control measures will be implemented. This schedule is developed with th e consideration of staffing resources, needs for technological advances in industries, and economic burdens on industry.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL Under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment, EPA recommends “as a contingency measure the requirement that measures which would take place in later years if the area met its RFP target or attainment deadline, would take effect earlier if the area did not meet its RFP target or attainment deadline.” Thus, in the event the Dist rict or Air Resources Board determines that the District failed to either achieve interim emissi on reduction goals or maintain adequate progress towards attainment of ambient air quality standards, the District will accelerate the implementation schedule for the emission reduction stationary source control measures in the 2003 AQMP.
This contingency control measure proposes to accelerate the starting implementation date for the stationary source control measures that have implementation dates on and after 2004. For each control measure in Table 4, the adoption, starting, and ending implementation dates as proposed in the 2003 AQMP, along with revised star ting implementation date is identified. As shown in Table 4, this measure does not propose changes to the ending implementation date schedule.Final Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures CM #2003CTY-01

IV-126 

### TABLE 4 Proposed Contingency Implementation Sc hedule for Stationary Source Control Measures with Starting Implementation Dates Post 2004

CM Number Control Measure Title Adopt Date Starting Implementation Date End Implm.

Date 2003 AQMP Revised CTS-07 Further Emission Reductions from Architectural Coating (Rule 1113) (VOC) 2003 2006 2005 2008

CTS-10 Miscellaneous Industrial Coatings & Solvent Operations (Regulation IV and XI) (VOC) Phase I Phase II Phase III 2004 2005 2006 2006 2007 2008 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 FUG-05 Emission Reductions from fugitive Emission Sources Phase III (VOC) 2003 2005 2004 2008

CMB-07 Emission Reductions from Petroleum Refinery Flares (All Pollutants) 2004 2005 2004 2004

CMB-10 Additional NO x Reductions for RECLAIM (NO x ) 2004 2006 2005 2010 BCM-07 Further PM10 Reductions from Fugitive Dust Sources (PM10) 2004 2006 2005 2005

BCM-08 Further Emission Reductions from Aggregate and Cement Plant Manufacturing Operations (PM10) 2004 2006 2005 2005

PRC-03 Emission Reductions from Restaurant Operations (PM10) 2003 2004 2004 2003 2010

PRC-07 Industrial Process Operations (VOC) Phase I Phase II 2004 2005 2006 2008 2005 2006 2007 2010 MSC-05 Truck Stop Electrification 2005 2007 2006 2007 MSC-06 Emission Reductions from Wood-Burning Fireplaces & Wood Stoves (PM10) 2005 2006 2005 2005

MSC-07 Natural Gas Fuel Specifications (NO x ) 2005 2007 2006 2010 FSS-05 Mitigation Fee Program for Federal sources (All) 2005 2010 2008 2010
FSS-06 Further Emission Reducti ons from In-Use Off-Road Mobile Vehicles and Equipment (All) 2005 2007 2006 2010

FSS-07 Emission Fee Program fo r Port-Related Mobile Sources (All) 2006 2008 2007 2010Final Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures CM #2003CTY-01

IV-127 As previously discussed, the implementation sche dule is developed with the consideration of staffing resources. Accelerating the implemen tation schedule, although feasible, may require additional District resources to adopt and implement control measures.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION This measure is designed to achieve the maximum emission reductions in the most expeditious manner in the event that interim emission reduction goals are not met or adequate progress towards attainment of ambient air quality standa rds is not maintained. The emission reductions from the accelerated schedule for implementation of these control measures will be equivalent to those emission reductions projected for each individual control measure and will not be altered by a change in the implementation date.



### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS Shifting the starting implementation dates will not alter the rule compliance or test methods for each for each individual control measure. Rule compliance and applicable test methods are specific to each control measure and are discussed in Section I of this appendix.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS Accelerating the starting implementation schedul e is not expected to change the cost effectiveness associated with individual contro l measures. A discussion of the potential cost effectiveness for each control measure referenced herein is provided in Section I of this appendix. The overall cost effectiveness of this contingency control measure has not yet been determined.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The implementing agency is dependent on each specific control measure and includes the District and local government.



### REFERENCES Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Part 52. State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Proposed Rules. April 16, 1992.Final Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures CM #2003CTY-04

IV-128 

### ENHANCED OXYGENATED FUELS CONTENT [CO]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : O N -R OAD M OTOR V EHICLES
C ONTROL M ETHODS : U SE OF O XYGENATED F UELS
E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED (S EE E MISSIONS R EDUCTION S ECTION )
C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : EPA, ARB 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background Oxygenates are compounds which contai n carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. The use of oxygenated fuels will provide a certain level of oxygen enrichment, or enleanment during fuelrich modes of operation such as cold starts. This enleanment usually results in reduced CO emissions. In addition, slight decreases in VOC emissions, as well as increased NO x emissions, may result. Two types of oxygenates have been the primary focus of interest by regulatory agencies--ethanol and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE).


### Regulatory History Various government agencies have implemented oxygenated fuels programs. For example, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission enacted its oxygenated fuels program on January 1, 1988. This program requires oxygenated fuels to be sold in ten non-attainment areas each winter season (November through February). A minimum oxygen content requirement of 1.5 percent by weight was required during January and February of 1988. This oxygen content requirement was increased to 2 percent by weight for subsequent winter seasons. Beginning in December 1990 (for December through February only), the oxygenated fuels requirement was increased to 2.6 percent by weight for all ga soline grades, except premium unleaded. In addition to the program in Colorado, oxygenated fuels programs are also in effect in Arizona as well as Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada.

In October of 1990, amendments to the federal Cl ean Air Act (CAA) were adopted. Included in the revisions are oxygenated fuels mandates for CO nonattainment areas. As specified, sale of oxygenated fuel, with oxygen content of not less than 2.7 percent by weight, would be required during that portion of the year in areas that are prone to high ambient CO concentrations (winter months).
In November 1991, ARB proposed limits that are different than the 2.7 percent by weight limit specified in the CAA because the oxygen limit sp ecified in the CAA could potentially increase NO x emissions from motor vehicles. Studies by ARB indicated that increasing the oxygen content from 2 percent to the federal specified average of 2.7 percent oxygen, could increaseFinal Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures CM #2003CTY-04

IV-129 NO x emissions from 1 to 9 percent based on the type of oxygenate used. As a result, ARB adopted new wintertime oxygen content standards for California of 1.8 - 2.2 percent by weight beginning in 1992. By 1996, 1.8 - 2.2 percent by we ight oxygen content will be required yearround. It should be noted, however, that ARB has indicated the data on the effect of oxygenates on NO x emissions is still under investigation. It is uncertain whether the NO x effect is dependent on the type of oxygenate or the oxygen content.

In the event that the District fails to achie ve CO National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the District would require a mini mum oxygen content of 3.1 percent for winter months only. In Title I in the preamble to the federal Clean Air Act, EPA states that, “for serious nonattainment areas, a logical continge ncy measure for failure to attain by the attainment date would be the adoption of a requirement for a minimum 3.1 percent oxygen content of gasoline subject to the waiver provisions in section 211(m)(3).”
After the end of 2003, all gasoline sold in California must comply with the California Phase 3 reformulate gasoline regulations. The California Phase 3 regulation will require that any change in fuel properties that increase NOx emissions mu st be offset by changes in other properties. These changes tend to increase both hydrocarbons and CO.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL This contingency control measure proposes to increase the oxygen content of gasoline sold in the Basin during winter months. The oxygen content would be as high as necessary to offset one years worth of emissions growth associated with increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT). To ensure that implementation of this continge ncy control measure does not result in significant increases in NO x emissions, measures can be taken such as avoiding specific types of oxygenates.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Implementation of this contingency measure would result in CO emission reductions. The amount of CO emission reductions would be de pendent on the oxygen content and the type of oxygenate used. In the 1999 staff report for th e California Phase 3 gasoline regulations, CARB estimated that increasing the fuel oxygen conten t to 3 percent would result in less than a 6 percent reduction in the emissions of CO. The varia tion in the test data is attributed to the type of oxygenate and the testing methodology.

NO x emissions increases may also occur as a result of an oxygenated fuels mandate. Significant NO x emission impacts from an oxygenated fuels program could interfere with attainment of the ozone ambient air quality standa rd. However, since this measure is primarily designed to be implemented in the cooler winter months, increased NO x emissions as an ozone precursor may not be a significant issue. Should this measure be implemented, the District will seek to monitor NO x concentrations as part of this implem entation of this measure. In addition, the potential for emission increases from other pollutants (i.e., HC, NO x ), need to be further evaluated during any rule development for increasing the oxygen content of gasoline.



### RULE COMPLIANCEFinal Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures CM #2003CTY-04

IV-130 This measure would require reporting, recor dkeeping and monitoring to complete the compliance plans and ensure their enforceability.



### TEST METHODS

Test methods could include:

1. ASTM D 323-58 or CCR Section 2297 - RVP

2. ASTM D 2622-87 - Sulfur Content

3. ASTM D 3606-87 - Benzene Content

4. ASTM D 1319-88 - Olefin Content

5. ASTM D 4815-88 - Oxygen Content

6. ASTM D 86-82 - T90 and T50

7. ARB MLD 116 - Aromatic Hydrocarbons



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact a ssociated with implementing this control measure and will provide cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Air Resources Board would be responsible for implementing this control measure.



### REFERENCES

California Air Resources Board. Phase 2 Refo rmulated Gasoline Specifications and the Wintertime Oxygen Content of Gasoline. Staff Report. October 1991.
Livo, Kim. State of Colorado Department of Health. Personal communication with David Coel, SCAQMD, April 1991.

Manufacturers of Emission Controls Associa tion. 1990. MECA Summary of the Title II Provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. December, 1990.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Management Plan, 1989 Revision. March, 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Gu idance on Estimating Motor Vehicle Emission Reductions From the Use of Alternative Fuels and Fuel Blends. January, 1988.Final Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures CM #2003CTY-04

IV-131 U.S. House of Representatives. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990--Conference Report to Accompany S. 1630. Report 101-952. October, 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Part 52. SIP, General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Proposed Rule. April 1994.Final Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures CM #2003CTY-14

IV-132 

### CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES [PM10]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : M ISCELLANEOUS PM10 E MISSIONS

C ONTROL M ETHODS : F URTHER C ONTROLS ON W EED A BATEMENT O PERATIONS

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): T O B E D ETERMINED

C ONTROL C OST : T O B E D ETERMINED

I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : N OT APPLICABLE 

### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL Future regulations to require mowing or cutting for weed abatement would likely be implemented through clarifications and/or a dditional Rule 403 requirements. Additional controls could include provisions to limit weed abatement to the early morning hours (winds are typically lower in the morning), lower vehicle speeds or, in instances when mowing is not feasible, require pre-treatment of the site with a watering truck.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS - TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY Mowing for weed abatement is presently feasib le and many jurisdictions already encourage mowing of a site rather than discing. Consulta tion with the industry has indicated that mowing is much more difficult than discing on a site w ith protruding obstacles (e.g., rocks). Mowing in these areas requires the equipment operator to rem ove the obstacles prior to clearing the site. This adds greatly to the time needed to conduct weed abatement activities.
Since this is not a recognized source categor y, emission estimates from weed abatement activities are presently not included in the PM10 emission inventory. Because of this, and the fact that the specific differences in PM10 emissions between mowing and discing are not known, the overall emission reduction of this control measure cannot be calculated.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Future regulations could be developed to require mowing instead of discing for weed abatement, if additional research warranted this as an effective PM10 control measure. Each of the agencies that issues weed abatement orders presently maintains information on the areas in which control is necessary. This information c ould serve as recordkeeping of control measure implementation.



### TEST METHODS Compliance determinations with future regulati ons could be made through field inspections of areas in which weed abatement is required. Agen cy recordkeeping information could be used to improve coordination of compliance activity.Final Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures CM #2003CTY-14

IV-133 

### COST EFFECTIVENESS - ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY Agency consultation indicates that weed abatement orders are typically issued by the appropriate agency with a specified compliance date. Property owners can have the work done or can wait for county action. After the manda tory compliance date has lapsed, agency personnel inspect the properties for compliance. Non-compliant properties are scheduled for weed abatement and property owners are billed fo r the costs incurred by the agency. Available average cost information is presented below (Thomas, 1994).

Control Option Costs per Acre Discing $30.00 Mowing $40.00
These are average costs and do not account fo r the unique circumstances encountered on individual properties. Mowing, for example, may be much more expensive than discing because mowing may be required several times pe r year. Additionally, under an order for weed abatement, a property owner may be able to establish fire breaks around the perimeter using discing rather than mowing the entire site (Thom as, 1994). For these reasons of variability cost effectiveness estimates are presently not available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The SCAQMD has the authority to require mowing instead of discing for weed abatement. Coordination with agencies responsible for i ssuing weed abatement orders would improve control measure implementation.



### REFERENCES

AeroVironment. 1992. PM 10 Emission Control Measure Demonstration Projects in the Coachella Valley. February, 1992.
Thomas, Griff. 1994. San Bernardino County Agricultural Commissioner, Weed Abatement program. Staff communication, January 27, 1994.